Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKERin the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

SELECTION

Ordered,
That the Standing Order of 6th August 1976 relating to the nomination of members of the Committee of Selection be amended by leaving out Mr. Donald Stewart and inserting Mr. A. J. Beith.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

CROWN AGENTS

Return ordered,
of the Report by the Committee of Inquiry appointed by the Minister of Overseas Development into the circumstances which led to the Crown Agents requesting financial assistance from the Government in 1974.—[Mrs. Hart.]

Return ordered,
of the Statement by Her Majesty's Government on the Report by the Fay Committee of Inquiry on the Crown Agents.—[Mrs. Hart.]

Return ordered,
of the Report by the Advisory Committee on the Crown Agents (the Stevenson Committee), 24th March 1974, being Annex V to the Statement by Her Majesty's Government on the Report by the Fay Committee of Inquiry on the Crown Agents.—[Mrs. Hart.]

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Green Pound

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the latest figures available for the percentage effect on the overall price of food and the retail price index of adjusting the value of the green pound to bring it into line with the price of the £ sterling; what steps he is taking to protect the consumer against this sort of movement; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Silkin): It would require a devaluation of about 23 per cent. to bring the green pound fully into line with the current market rate used for calculating MCAs. The exact effect of a change of this order cannot be predicted but I estimate that it might eventually raise retail food prices by between 5 per cent. and 6½ per cent. on average and the retail price index by between 1¼ per cent. and 1½ per cent. I have made it clear that the timing and extent of any change must be judged against the national interest as a whole including the impact on the cost of living.

Mr. Speaker: I omitted to tell the House that fewer and shorter supplementary questions and briefer ministerial replies—I am not referring to the one that we have just heard—help us to reach more Questions.

Mr. Roberts: Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity of pointing out to the housewives of Britain that they will have to face price increases at the beginning of the year anyway because of the transitional arrangements with the EEC? Will he make it clear to our partners in Europe and to the farming interests in this country that under no circumstances will he consider any devaluation of the green pound?

Mr. Silkin: I made the position clear to the housewives on 17th February, in answers to questions from my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) and the hon. Member for


Banbury (Mr. Marten), and on various tedious occasions afterwards. Of course the transitional steps will mean a gradual increase in prices, not necessarily on 1st January. Thanks to the butter subsidy, which the Opposition chided me for achieving, increases will be spread over a longer period.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the disparity between the green pound and the real rate is one of the greatest single factors promoting the export of cattle from this country for slaughter abroad? Does he not agree that the many people who condemn the export of cattle should welcome a readjustment in the green pound?

Mr. Silkin: The connection between those two points is rather remote. I suspect that those who object to the export of live animals do so for compassionate reasons. If one were to devalue the green pound it would assist certain elements in agriculture, but I have to achieve a balance in the national interest.

Mr. Geraint Howells: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the time has come to devalue the green pound by 10 per cent. if confidence is to be restored in the beef and pig sector of the agriculture industry?

Mr. Silkin: If I did agree with the hon. Member, I certainly would not say so at this time. I cannot imagine anything that would have a greater effect on speculation. I am willing to listen to hon. Members' advice. I get a great deal of advice. The right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) suggests that I devalue by 7½ per cent., the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells) says 10 per cent. and my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Mr. Roberts) says zero.

Mr. Watkinson: When my right hon. Friend goes to Europe for discussions will he say why the green pound and the pigmeat MCAs are different? When will the Commission come forward with proposals on the pigmeat MCAs?

Mr. Silkin: Yes, because the question of pigmeat MCAs concerns not so much the value of the green pound—or the green franc or the green lire, because they are involved in this as well—but on the method used to calculate the MCAs. We have been pressing the Commission on this for some months now. I am glad to

say that at the last council we were supported by the French and Italians, and I hope that between the three of us we can move the Commission more speedily.

Mr. Peyton: May I say how glad I am that the Minister is on his way to recovery, though I doubt whether this is the right place in which to complete recovery? I hope that he will, however.
Will he confirm that according to his own calculations devaluation of the green pound by 7½per cent. would result in an increase in the cost of living index of about a half per cent? In assessing the national interest will he give proper place to the fate of the livestock producer whose interests ultimately will have a sharp impact upon the consumer, which is the group that the Minister affects to look after?

Mr. Silkin: I thank the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) for his kind remarks. I feel a lot better as I see these old familiar faces all around me.
As for the substantive part of the question, I have said that this is a question of balance between the interest of the consumer and the interest of the producer. That is the difficulty. I have tried to do a quick mental calculation, and I do not think that I am wrong to within half a per cent., that on food prices it is a figure of about 2½ per cent. Of course the effect on the RPI can be calculated by multiplying that by roughly a quarter.

Mr. Brotherton: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the value of the green pound.

Mr. John Silkin: The difference between the representative rate for sterling and the market rate used for the purpose of calulating monetary compensatory amounts is now £1=1·30696 units of account, giving an applied MCA percentage of 28·9. I continue to keep the rate for the green pound under review.

Mr. Brotherton: Is the Minister aware that the reply will be received with great disappointment by the pig and beef sectors, and will he tell the House what he is going to do to help the livestock producers over the next three months?

Mr. Silkin: I was trying to answer the question as factually as I could. A number of factors are moving somewhat


in the livestock producer's favour. There has been, as there always is at this time of year, an increase in the home market for beef. It happens that at this time there is an increase in exports of Irish beef to this country—an increase which the Irish themselves did not believe would happen. Their calculations were for a drop in production, not an increase, let alone an increase in exports. The fact is that food costs will probably drop a little further, and the target price during the winter will increase.

Mr. George Rodgers: Is it not true that the grain crop in this country in the current year has increased to 17 million tons for the first time—an all-time record? Against this background, is it not nonsense for Conservative Members continually to claim that the farming community is hard pressed?

Mr. Silkin: Certain parts of the farming industry are in difficulties, and it is no use denying it. Other parts are doing very well. I have to tread very carefully on the question of a record harvest. I was chided by Sir Henry Plumb and by various members of the Conservative Front Bench for daring to say that there might be one.

Mr. Shepherd: Does the Minister recognise that while he maintains this very large differential, distortions are being set up in the market which will not be in the interests of the housewife in the long run?

Mr. Silkin: That is one of the factors that have to be watched. I have always said that we have to keep an absolute balance on the matter of the green pound. It is no good taking a specific sector while, at the same time, ignoring the fact that many of the imports that the housewife needs come in a good deal cheaper than they would otherwise. If I am to be both Minister of Agriculture and Minister of Food, as I must be, I must keep the balance.

Mr. McNamara: Has my right hon. Friend considered publishing a table containing the possible price variations and inflation variations associated with our revaluing the green pound, so that, for example, 1 per cent. upwards would mean so much on inflation, so much on consumer prices, so much on wage demands, and so much unemployment?

It would clear our minds if we could have that information.

Mr. Silkin: If my hon. Friend would care to table a Question, I shall see what I can do.

Mr. Peyton: Will the right hon. Gentleman identify the large sections of the livestock industry which he thinks are doing particularly well at the moment? My hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Brotherton) mentioned beef and bacon, but he did not mention milk or dairy products. Will the right hon. Gentleman take the opportunity to say what will happen to dairy products after the end of the year?

Mr. Silkin: I could, but I will not, because I am not yet in a position to do so. As the right hon. Gentleman must be aware—none more so—this has been an extremely good year for milk yield, and it was that which I had particularly in mind when I tried to isolate those parts of the livestock industry which I thought were doing not so well. As to pigs, there is difficulty with processing, but for the pig producer the position is undoubtedly improving.

Non-Milk Fats Products

Mr. Richard Page: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on what grounds he withdrew his opposition to the proposed new Community regulations enabling the manufacture and marketing of products containing non-milk fats to be restricted.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. E. S. Bishop): My right hon. Friend has always objected to any proposal to restrict the manufacture and marketing of products containing non-milk fats. There is now no such implementing proposal on the table.

Mr. Page: I thank the Minister for his reply. It seemed likely that the Council of Ministers would approve this regulation, and I am pleased to hear the Minister's denial of it.

Mr. Bishop: I am glad that the hon. Member is satisfied with our assurance. We believe that the best approach is to reduce surpluses and not to restrict the freedom of choice of food manufacturers and consumers generally.

Common Agricultural Policy

Mr. Giles Shaw: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will use his influence in the Council of Ministers in Brussels to modify the common agricultural policy on the lines set out in the proposed common food policy.

Mr. John Silkin: The Food and Drink Industries Council's proposal for a common food policy is a useful contribution to discussions on the common agricultural policy. Its main aim of bringing about a better balance between producer and consumer is in line with the objectives that I have consistently pursued.

Mr. Shaw: Does the Minister agree that to produce surpluses to buy into intervention is no longer adequate in the present marketing context? Does he further agree that some other method, be it by way of quotas or targets, is in the interests of the consumer, the food processer and, ultimately, the primary producer?

Mr. Silkin: I said that I thought that the Council's report was interesting. Where I differ from it is precisely in respect of these production quotas. I think that they are a bit too rigid. I have always thought that the real way to tackle surpluses in the Community was through the end price. It is by producing food at a price that people can afford to pay that one avoids structural surpluses

Mr. Corbett: In the context of my right hon. Friend's continuing efforts to get better sense in to the CAP ill he try to persuade the Council of Ministers to give more urgent attention to the need to recalculate the pig meat MCAs, in view of their drastic and critical effect on the processing end of the industry and the very real threat to jobs which is bound up with that?

Mr. Silkin: I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Corbett) has made this point, because it is vital. It seems that if one is to come into disagreement, as one must, there should at least be no disagreement on the method of calculating the MCAs, and the fact is that the method now adopted is outrageously wrong.

Mr. Welsh: Is the Minister aware of the proposals for CAP reform as set out

by Professor Marsh in the Centre for Agricultural Strategy report? When does he expect to be able to comment on that?

Mr. Silkin: I think that I might try now. Basically they are very interesting proposals. Professor Marsh skates round one difficulty when he talks about a common trade policy. It is all very well to say that, but how are we to get the Nine to agree? How are we to get Germany, which lives on high prices, and the United Kingdom, which is on a much lower basis, to agree on a common trade policy?

Common External Tariff

Mr. Jim Spicer: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he is taking to ensure that the Community's common external tariff is lowered to allow easier entry of foodstuffs, such as manufacturing beef and honey, of which inadequate supplies are produced within the Community.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Gavin Strang): The reduction of tariffs on foodstuffs is one of the objects of the current GATT multilateral trade negotiations. My right hon. Friend the Minister hopes that it will be possible to achieve significant reductions on the Community's tariffs in return for reductions in the tariffs of other countries. Importation of manufacturing beef into the Community is covered by the balance sheet arrangements which permit specified quantities to be imported at a reduced rate of levy.

Mr. Spicer: I thank the Minister for his reply, but may I emphasise one point? To move away from beef and honey, is he aware that there are other areas where we are about to face fairly hefty increases in import duty—for example, on mandarin oranges? Can he give the House any idea what representations have been made to avoid that, particularly since 95 per cent. of these imports come from Spain, which is seeking entry into the Community? It seems ludicrous.

Mr. Strang: The hon. Gentleman will be the first to recognise that one consequence of Spain's coming into the Community would be the eventual elimination of these tariffs and levies. I agree


that there are far too many of them on products coming into this country as a result of Community arrangements. The Government are continuing to strive to have them reduced.

Mr. Fernyhough: Does my hon. Friend not agree that it would have been much better to try to modify the impositions by the Common Market upon us before we went in? Does he not think it is rather cynical for those who voted for use to go in now to complain about the consequences?

Mr. Strang: I do not think that it would be appropriate for me to reopen the issue of our membership of the Community. However, my hon. Friend and I are agreed on a broad range of changes which we must endeavour to achieve now that we are in the Community.

Mr. Shersby: Does the Minister agree that the sudden ending of the standstill agreement will result in the duty on mandarin oranges rising from 7½ per cent. to 22 per cent? Will he say what action he is taking with our Community partners to deal with this situation to ensure that the housewife can still get mandarin oranges at a reasonable price?

Mr. Strang: I can assure the hon. Member that all of our Community partners are aware of our intense opposition to that type of levy and to many other levies and tariffs, which, on occasions, apply to commodities coming into this country of which there is very limited production in the EEC, where they are out of season anyway.

Badgers

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many badgers he expects to be killed under the powers given by the Diseases of Animals (Badgers) (Control Areas) Order 1977; and what steps he is taking to ensure that the minimum number of badgers are killed, and that the maximum safety precautions are taken when hydrocyanic acid gas is used.

Mr. Strang: I am afraid that it is not possible to make such an estimate, but gassing is restricted to sets used by tuberculin-infected badgers and their contacts. It is carried out by specially-trained teams of Ministry staff operating under a code

of practice containing detailed safety instructions.

Mr. Bennett: I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. Is he certain that no other methods of containing the spread of these diseases are possible, apart from the extermination of the badgers?

Mr. Strang: I recognise that my hon. Friend has raised an issue that is of considerable concern. I can assure him that we should not have embarked on this course if we were not convinced that it was the only way to reduce the level of tuberculosis infection in the local cattle population and also in the local badger population.

Mr. Watkinson: Will my right hon. Friend recognise that the county that I represent suffers especially from this problem? Will he please publish all the evidence that he has to suggest that it is the badgers which are carrying and transmitting this disease? There is a great deal of concern in Gloucestershire about the whole problem.

Mr. Strang: Yes, I am happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance. Last November we published and placed in the House of Commons Library a report on all the evidence and work that had been done to date. Another report is in preparation and will be published very shortly. I assure my hon. Friend that every step that we have taken in this area has had the support of the consultative panel, which includes representatives of the Nature Conservancy and also leading animal welfare experts.

Fishing Quotas

Mr. Clegg: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made in negotiations between Norway and the European Economic Community regarding fishing quotas.

Mr. Bishop: There have so far been two rounds of consultations about reciprocal fishing possibilities in 1978. Considerable progress has been made on the allocation of the shared stocks in the North Sea, but no quotas have yet been decided upon for stocks in the Norwegian Arctic region. These are being discussed in conjunction with quotas for Norway from stocks occurring exclusively in


member States' waters. Further consultations are to be held shortly.

Mr. Clegg: Is the Minister aware of the necessity for urgency in this matter? In Fleetwood we have two trawlers tied up, with the men unemployed, and there are many more in Humberside. Does he agree that it is essential to get agreement on the quotas, so that we know for the future what the supplies will be?

Mr. Bishop: I recognise the urgency of this matter. From the consultations that we have had so far, it seems likely that agreement can be reached on the division of the shared stocks for 1978, but we want to make sure that the United Kingdom gets a share of the available fishing opportunities which is comparable to the contribution that we are making to the Community resources.

Mr. Jay: Has my right hon. Friend noticed that Norway, by the simple expedient of staying out of the European Economic Community, has obtained a 200-miles exclusive fishing zone, whereas we have not yet obtained one of 50 miles?

Mr. Bishop: I think that my right hon. Friend will want to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture for the contribution that he has made so far in ensuring that the national interests are looked after.

National Farmers Union

Mr. Bulmer: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will next meet the President of the National Farmers Union.

Mr. Silkin: I have no specific plans, at present, for a meeting with the President of the National Farmers Union but I keep in close touch with the union on matters of concern to agriculture.

Mr. Bulmer: When the Minister next meets Sir Henry Plumb, will he dissociate himself and his Government from the remarks of another Minister, the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Barnett), who said recently that he was in favour of the public ownership of land because the individual farmer is not to be trusted to maintain the long-term fertility of the land?

Mr. Silkin: The proper person to whom that question should be addressed is my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment. There is no reason why I should answer a question that relates to something that I do not believe was in fact ever said.

Mr. Henderson: Will the Minister consider meeting the Newdeer and Turriff branches of the National Farmers Union in Scotland, and discuss with them the dreadful fall in livestock prices in the North-East of Scotland in recent weeks, which they attribute, perhaps rightly, to the imports of subsidised Irish beef? Will the Minister review the position in respect of the rate of variable premium and consider whether the ceiling is now adequate for the market conditions?

Mr. Silkin: I think there is a difficulty in this sector, and not only in regard to Scotland. Perhaps it applies more to Wales, for largely historic reasons. The marketings plus the exports have come at the same time. I believe that the matter will be looked after fairly well during the winter months, but I shall keep the position very closely under review to ensure that that is so.

Mr. Jopling: Reverting to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Bulmer), may I ask the Minister whether he has read the report of what his colleague in the Government said? Does he recall that the report was written by Mr. Jim Murray, who was at one time a Labour parliamentary candidate, and that the words in the report were in quotation marks? We want to know from the Minister today whether he personally agreed with what his colleague in the Government was supposed to have said—that the public ownership of land was justified because individual farmers could not be trusted to look after the long-term fertility of the land.

Mr. Silkin: I will deal with the substantive part of that question, but I was anxious that the House should know that it is absurd to ask one Minister to deal with remarks, however phrased, made by somebody else. For example, if I were to deal with all the remarks made by the hon. Gentleman, I would be in a very sorry state indeed. I said that I would deal with the substantive part of


the question. As to the fertility of farmers, surely what is meant is the fertility of farmland. I do not think that I dare raise a voice about the fertility of farmers.

Mr. Corbett: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House a little more about the inquiry which he has asked his noble Friend Lord Northfield to undertake into the ownership of farm land? Was one of the reasons for setting up the inquiry the genuine fears in parts of the industry about the increasing investment by financial institutions in agricultural land, because they are interested not in agriculture but in a potential profit from the land?

Mr. Silkin: My hon. Friend has made a point on this subject which is worth considering. The question of who works the land—whether it is the owner, the tenant farmer or the worker who works for either of them—is a very different one from the question of who owns the land. The Northfield Committee was set up to consider whether the whole structure of agricultural land acquisition militated against the proper farming of the land in question.

Potatoes

Mr. Newens: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the future of the Potato Marketing Board.

Mr. Spence: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the position concerning the development of a potato régime within the common agricultural policy.

Mr. Bishop: Proposals for an EEC régime for potatoes have been under discussion in Brussels since early in 1976. Our objective is to achieve a cost-effective solution satisfactory to both producers and consumers. The producer interests have recently published proposals for price stabilisation arrangements which we regard, in principle, as providing a satisfactory basis for the United Kingdom in the longer term, subject to further consideration of their financial implications. These proposals envisage a continuing need for a central marketing authority such as the Potato Marketing Board in Great Britain and we hope they can be accommodated within an acceptable EEC régime.

Mr. Newens: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the disappearance of the Potato Marketing Board, like other marketing boards, would be an unmitigated disaster for both producers and consumers and that it would be one of the most unpleasant consequences of going into the EEC? Will he assure the House that if these proposals go ahead the Government will make sufficient funds available to ensure that they do not founder for lack of cash?

Mr. Bishop: I remind my hon. Friend that we said that the guarantee for this this year would continue. The long-term future of the Potato Marketing Board will depend on the part that it will play in an effective EEC régime. It is important to maintain the essential functions of the Board to protect both the producer and the consumer.

Sir David Renton: Is the Minister aware that farmers generally aim to make their cropping arrangements for the following season by the end of November in respect of the purchase of seed potatoes, fertilisers and the setting of acreages, and that the uncertainty that prevails at the moment is bad from the point of view of next season's potato production? When will that uncertainty be ended?

Mr. Bishop: There is uncertainty in a number of commodities in agriculture, as we all know. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, in all fair-mindedness, will recognise that my right hon. Friends did not play any part in the make-up of the transitional arrangements that are responsible for this situation.

Mr. Spence: Notwithstanding the negotiations and the last answer, will the Minister take steps to ensure that prices are given to our farmers in good time for next season's planting? Does he realise that otherwise there could be a shortfall due to this considerable uncertainty?

Mr. Bishop: We certainly understand the difficulties, and we shall do our best to help farmers. These matters will feature in the price review which is now under way.

Horses and Ponies (Exports)

Dr. Glyn: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many horses and ponies were exported


live to Denmark in the period 1st January 1977 to 1st July 1977.

Mr. Strang: A total of 70 horses and ponies were exported to Denmark during this period.

Dr. Glyn: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is a great deal of strong public feeling about the export of animals on the hoof for slaughter? When does he expect his departmental inquiry to report? Does he agree that the minimum levels laid down in 1973 for the export of horses are now completely out of date, because values have changed considerably?

Mr. Strang: I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman on the latter point. I have looked at this matter again. Because horse prices were so high when these values were fixed in 1973, they are still effectively preventing the export of horses for slaughter.
On the first point, I assure the hon. Gentleman that the review is well under way and that it will be concluded early in the new year.

Mr. Ronald Atkins: Is my hon. Friend aware that the export of live animals for slaughter over the last 10 years has got worse, not better? I suggest that the safeguards are entirely inadequate and that something must be done in response to the public outcry against this bad traffic.

Mr. Strang: There have been some improvements in the European context. The export of live animals from this country is carried out under much more restrictive arrangements than was previously the case. It was in response to the real concern expressed by my hon. Friend that my right hon. Friend set up the present inquiry.

Australia (Minister's Visit)

Mr. Body: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement about his visit to Australia.

Mr. John Silkin: I paid an official visit to Australia in August and September at the invitation of the Australian Government. I had an opportunity to see something of Australian agriculture at first hand and to have talks with

Australian Ministers. We were able to discuss many problems of mutual interest.

Mr. Body: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that when the Prime Minister of Australia came to this country in the summer he said that no less than one-third of dairy farmers in Australia had been driven out of business because of our entry into the EEC and that no less than 80,000 head of beef cattle had been shot and their carcases destroyed because they could not gain access to these markets? On his visit to Australia, did the Minister glean any evidence that would lead him to the view that we might be able to get some of this food in future if we lowered import duties and levies?

Mr. Silkin: I certainly saw that in the Commonwealth of Australia there was still available a supply of various kinds of food which this country had been traditionally accustomed to receive. Part of the Australians' complaint, if I read it correctly, was that while they knew that our going into the EEC might reduce their market, the fact was that export restitutions on EEC foodstuffs going out of the Community tended to destroy what other markets they might have. I am sure that our policy of trying to get greater liberalisation for imports of food from temperate climates — particularly from our old Commonwealth partners—in the multinational trade negotiations ought to play its part.

Mr. Jopling: Did the Minister have talks about the problems of sheepmeat imports from Australia? Is he in a position to tell the House what might happen next year with regard to the possibility of new arrangements for the trade in sheepmeat between third countries and Community countries? Will he make a statement to the House now?

Mr. Silkin: As the hon. Gentleman knows, there is as yet no proposal from the Commission that we are in a position to discuss with a view to obtaining a sheepmeat régime for the future. Such a proposal will no doubt be put before us fairly soon. There is one basic point to be extracted from the hon. Gentleman's question on which I hope the whole House will agree—namely, the absolute necessity of safeguarding the entry of New Zealand sheepmeat.

Pigmeat

Mr. David Price: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent representations he has received on behalf of the British pigmeat industry; and what reply he has given to such representations.

Mr. John Silkin: There have been continuing discussions with the National Farmers Union in the context of the annual review. I have met representatives of the Bacon and Meat Manufacturers Association and have urged them to support me in my representations to the Commission on the unfair way monetary compensatory amounts are calculated in this sector.

Mr. Price: Is the Minister aware that bacon curers are currently losing about £4 per bacon pig cured and that that is not in anyone's interest, least of all the long-term interest of the British housewife?

Mr. Silkin: I do not know the exact figure, but the economic position of bacon curers is bad. I should not have thought that it was in the interests of the economics of the country as a whole, either, and that is all the more reason why we should press on with trying to obtain a change in the calculation of the MCAs. As I said in answer to an earlier question, we now have the French and the Italians with us on that matter.

Mr. Torney: As the contraction of the meat manufacturing and bacon curing industries will cause widespread unemployment in those industries, will my right hon. Friend agree to co-ordinate the opposition in the EEC to the present system of MCAs? I understand that both France and Italy are in a position similar to ours. Will he therefore try to coordinate this opposition to force the Common Market Ministers, at their December meeting, to alter the MCA set-up?

Mr. Silkin: The question will certainly come up at the December meeting. The House need have no fear of that at all. It is right that not only the Government but the industry should now be coordinating their efforts.

Snares

Miss Fookes: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will take steps to ban the use of snares.

Mr. Strang: My right hon. Friend the Minister has no powers to do so; but in its advisory work on control of pests, my Department is at all times concerned to prevent avoidable suffering caused by snares, or unintended risks to other creatures.

Miss Fookes: Who does have the power to ban the use of snares?

Mr. Strang: Parliament would have to give the Government such powers, but I can assure the hon. Lady that we recognise that this is a form of pest control which should be used only in very exceptional circumstances. The problem is that in some cases there are no satisfactory alternatives.

Foodstuffs (Imports)

Mr. Marten: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what further steps he proposes to take for easier access into the United Kingdom for efficiently produced foodstuffs from outside the EEC in accordance with the resolution of the House of 16th March 1977.

Mr. John Silkin: I refer the hon. Member to the section on the reform of the common agricultural policy in the letter of 30th September 1977 from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the General Secretary of the Labour Party, copies of which are available in the Library of the House.

Mr. Marten: Following on the principle enunciated earlier by my hon. Friends the Members for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) and Dorset, West (Mr. Spicer)—who have now seen the light about the folly of the CAP, albeit only with regard to mandarin oranges—can the Minister explain why in the case of hard wheat, which is available in plentiful supply on the world market at £75 a ton and which is not produced in the Common Market, we have to pay £37 a ton import duty, which can only put up the price of bread in this country?

Mr. Silkin: There are a number of requirements of the CAP that we shall have to work on. I do not think it can be done immediately. I say that quite clearly. It will be done over a period of a few years. The question raised by the hon. Gentleman is undoubtedly one of the factors that we shall have to deal with. It is a very important one indeed.

Mr. Jay: Can my right hon. Friend confirm the report that large quantities of the butter which was sold cheap to the Soviet Union have now been sold back to Italy at a large profit to the Soviet Union?

Mr. Silkin: I cannot confirm the report, because it is being investigated and no one yet knows the truth of it, but the fact is that the real sin lies in exporting butter at 17p a pound, or whatever it is, to Eastern Europe when many people within the Community would like cheap butter. It was for that reason that I got the butter subsidy.

Mr. Skinner: That is not the real sin. The real sin was going in.

Animals (Exports)

Mr. Lipton: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action has been taken to implement the O'Brien Committee Report on the Export of Live Animals for Slaughter.

Mr. Terry Walker: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to conclude his review of the export of live animals from the United Kingdom.

Mr. Strang: The main recommendations of this report were that a permanent ban on the export of animals for slaughter was not justified and that the animals' best protection lay in the introduction of common European welfare regulations. The Government, with the approval of the House, decided in January 1975 that sufficient progres had been made in Europe and in improving national surveillance and controls to justify the resumption of the trade to those few countries which had adequate welfare safeguards.
As my hon. Friends are aware, my right hon. Friend the Minister announced in July a review of the developments in the export of live animals since its

resumption, and I expect this to be completed early in the new year.

Mr. Lipton: I do not thank my hon. Friend for that reply at all. Will he say why it is that after so long excuses are still being made for the continuation of this horrible traffic? Some of us are getting sick and tired of the excuses being made for not taking adequate and immediate action on this matter.

Mr. Strang: My hon. Friend may not be thankful for my reply, but he will at least welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend is setting up an inquiry into the matter. I am hopeful that the results that will come out of that inquiry will respond in some way to my hon. Friend's concern.

Mr. Terry Walker: Will my hon. Friend give an asurance that when this review does become public we shall have a chance to debate it in the House?

Mr. Strang: My hon. Friend will recognise that that is a matter for the Leader of the House, but of course there will be a great deal of interest in the outcome of this review.

Mr. Charles Morrison: Can the Minister say how many prosecutions there have been for breaches of the regulations on the export of animals? Is he satisfied that those who are responsible have upheld the regulations and are doing so properly?

Mr. Strang: The hon. Gentleman would be well advised to await the outcome of the review, when we shall be able to bring all this information together.

GARSTON

Mr. Loyden: asked the Prime Minister if he will pay an official visit to Garston.

The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): I have at present no plans to do so.

Mr. Loyden: Is my right hon. Friend aware that if he visited my constituency he would discover the resentment and bitterness expressed not only by firemen but by many of my constituents who support the legitimate demands of the firemen? Many of us on the Government


side of the House feel that a settlement is not only possible but is now becoming an urgent necessity.

The Prime Minister: I would expect to find some bitterness. Indeed, I have detected it myself when I have been picketed or demonstrated against by firemen in many parts of the country. But I hope that my hon. Friend will tell his constituents that there will be equal bitterness and resentment or even greater bitterness and resentment, if, as a result of settlements which spread through the economy, we were to have much higher unemployment, much higher prices and a return to the inflation of two years ago.
It is for this reason that we are taking the stand that we are. As to a settlement, I agree with my hon. Friend that the concern of the firemen is genuine. There is no reason why a number of elements should not be put together in this dispute to form a settlement. There is the long-term formula that I have discussed with the firemen and the possibility of underwriting it. There is the prospect on hours. There is the guaranteed phasing in of a settlement, and there is the 10 per cent. that the firemen have been offered immediately. I see no reason at all why this should not be put together to form a constructive settlement on which the firemen should return to work.

Mr. Brotherton: If the Prime Minister cannot go to Garston will he go to Bootle and tell the firemen there that he disapproves entirely of their action in picketing the accommodation of the soldiers who are employed fighting fires in Liverpool and who are paid considerably less money than are the firmen?

The Prime Minister: The Fire Brigades Union national executive has indicated to all its members that it does not wish picketing to take place in the places where soldiers are.

Mr. Brotherton: They are picketing in Bootle.

The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman does not seem to be up to date with the situation, I can tell him that the local Fire Brigades Union has withdrawn its pickets from that area. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will make the appropriate correction.

Miss Maynard: On the subject of inflation, how can my right hon. Friend persist in his arguments in view of the high level of unemployment throughout the Western world and also in Britain? How can he say that inflation is still fuelled by excessive demand? Would it not be better to have higher wage awards in order to increase demand and thereby reduce unemployment?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is putting words into my mouth. I did not say that excessive demand was the cause of this at all. What I am saying, and what is not sufficiently appreciated, is that especially in manufacturing industry, on which we depend so much, the level of comparative wage settlements is of very great importance for competitive purposes. In the United States today settlements are taking place at 8 per cent., in Japan they are 8·8 per cent., in the Federal Republic 7 per cent., and in France 12·4 per cent. Therefore, 10 per cent. settlements in this country are by no means out of the way. We shall lose our competitive position and create greater unemployment unless this is fuly recognised. My hon. Friend would be doing a far greater service if she were to put this across to her constituents.

Mr. Prior: How can the Prime Minister expect to have the support of the country in pursuing his policies when he cannot even control his own Back Benchers?

The Prime Minister: With regard to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Miss Maynard) I have always proceeded on the basis that the Lord loveth whom he chasteneth. On the whole, I think that she prefers me to the right hon. Gentleman.

MINISTERS' NEWSPAPER ARTICLES

Mr. Tebbit: asked the Prime Minister what advice or instructions he as Prime Minister has given concerning the publication of newspaper articles by members of his Government.

The Prime Minister: Ministers are not debarred from contributing to a newspaper on occasion for the purpose of supplementing other means of informing the public about the work of their Department.

Mr. Tebbit: Was the Prime Minister told that I let his office know, in order to enable him to compose an unambiguous answer, that this question arose from an article in The Guardian by the Under-Secretary of State for Employment? In this article the Under-Secretary opposed any return to free collective bargaining. In view of the article, and the reported remarks of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, is the Prime Minister still committed to free, unfettered collective pay bargaining?

The Prime Minister: I was very grateful to the hon. Member for telephoning my office this morning, although somehow I do not think he did so in order to help me. I understand that this article, or what has now been turned into an article, was a speech that my hon. Friend made to his constituency Labour Party general management committee. Even Ministers are entitled to talk about these matters to their constituency parties.
As for free collective bargaining, I ceased to worship that 10 years ago. [Interruption.] Yes, I went to the TUC Congress and said it there. I do not think that collective bargaining is the means of obtaining justice and fair play in this country, but at the moment I do not know a better system.
The hon. Member might look at the points that I looked at in the Under-Secretary's speech. It has always been my position that
no real advances are possible without TUC backing and direct involvement".
In saying that, my hon. Friend was pointing out that arising out of the present difficulties and discontents there must be continuing discussion about the ways and means of improving the system.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: If there is no justice in collective bargaining, will the Prime Minister publish an article explaining what justice there is in a pay policy that discriminates against the most vulnerable workers in the public service, such as the firemen, or those in the private sector who are most susceptible to Government sanctions, and leaves the most powerful workers alone and unscathed? Is it not time now to end this anomalous and iniquitous policy—

Mr. Speaker: Come to the point.

The Prime Minister: I am not sure that my hon. Friend is not reinforcing my view about the difficulties, weaknesses, ills and evils associated with the present system. Its advantages—the main advantage is one that I wish to see the trade union leaders practise this year—lie in moderate wage claims. They do not have to claim excessive increases. In future there will be public discussion, and the Chancellor also is entitled to a little thinking about one of the major problems facing this country at present. We might have a little more thinking from the Opposition Benches on this matter. Their total lack of policy on such things was exposed in the Financial Times yesterday.

Mr. Pym: Will the Prime Minister say whether he agrees with the Chancellor's thinking? If Ministers are advocating a phase 4 pay policy, and if the Chancellor is actually suggesting it, unless the Prime Minister repudiates it the House has no alternative but to presume that this is now the pay policy of this Government.

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) is doing very well in his capacity as a substitute. I am afraid that I simply will not be pinned down by the right hon. Member or by anybody else on what future pay settlements will be in the autumn of 1978. I have enough to do to get through the autumn of 1977 first. However, in relation to next year, I can say that if we have moderate settlements to look forward to—and we already have some in a number of areas—we can be certain that the retail price index will be so much lower next year that there will not be the same incentive to claim exceptional wage increases. There is no reason for the right hon. Gentleman to conclude that any decisions will be taken yet, or that there are likely to be any about the future of pay policy in the winter of 1978. I say that so that I can spare the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) his supplementary before he asks it.

PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)

Mr. Wyn Roberts: asked the Prime Minister if he will list his engagements for 1st December.

The Prime Minister: This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet. I also met Governer Brown of California. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be holding further meetings with ministerial colleagues and others.

Mr. Roberts: Will the Prime Minister have another go at clearing up the very messy situation left after the Chancellor talked with the Manifesto Group last night? If the Prime Minister does not like free collective bargaining, as he has told us today, will he continue with what Mr. Gormley calls "the most involuntary voluntary policy"?

The Prime Minister: The guidelines were published in the White Paper last July, and that is what we are adhering to. I shall not condemn anyone in this House—not the Chancellor nor the Under-Secretary for Employment, not even the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit)—[Interruption.] Perhaps I shall exempt him, after all—for trying to think ahead about the way in which we can get a rational approach to wages in this country without having excessive settlements that are likely to lead to inflation.

Mr. Pardoe: The Prime Minister may rest assured that I was not going to ask him about phase 4, because I am much more concerned about phase 3. Will he accept that if the present rate of wage settlements in the private sector continues as for the remaining part of phase 3 up to July 1977, the rate of price increases will rise very rapidly in the second half of 1978? What is he doing to enforce the guidelines in the private sector?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that we can draw that conclusion. I believe that only 3 per cent. of wage earners in this country have made settlements. Many are waiting to see what happens. I was told yesterday and the House will have read about what I million local authority wage earners were saying about a current dispute. A great many people are waiting. It is not right to suggest that there will be a great excess. Nobody can say that, when such a small proportion have settled. It is the Government's responsibility, within budgetary limits and in other ways, to try to prevent people in the private sector from saying that they did it because the Government did it.

Mr. Madden: Will the Prime Minister take the opportunity of having a word with the German Minister of Labour who is visiting London this week and others like him, such as the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), who are implacably opposed to the temporary employment subsidy? The Prime Minister should tell them that Britain intends to continue with the TES because of its importance to the textile and clothing industry.

The Prime Minister: There is no doubt that in the middle of a world recession it would be absolutely idiotic to follow the suggestions of the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) who says that all rescues and subsidies are harmful. I have never heard a more stupid expression in the 33 years that I have been in this House.

Mr. Michael Latham: In view of the motion on the Order Paper by the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) and other Labour Members about the Government's sanctions policy, and their attack upon it, will the Prime Minister seek from the House a legal basis for his 10 per cent. pay policy and for his sanctions, neither of which have such a legal basis?

The Prime Minister: The answer in both cases is "No".

Mr. Ashley: Why do the Government not suggest an institution such as the National Board for Prices and Incomes to operate alongside their voluntary pay policy?

The Prime Minister: I think that the experience of the Prices and Incomes Board in the past shows all too clearly that this kind of institution cannot operate without the full consent and support of those who intend to control or take part in it. That is why I have always insisted that whatever the difficulties in a democratic society like ours, we shall not succeed without the support of the trade unions in these matters. That is why my efforts at the moment have been bent on winning public and trade union opinion to our side. What is more, we are holding it remarkably well.

Mr. Peter Walker: Originally the Government's guideline were 6 per cent.


on wage rates and 10 per cent. on earnings. Are they now 10 per cent. on wage rates and 15 per cent. on earnings?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. The Government's original guidelines were 10 per cent. on national earnings, and settlements well within single figures. We would like to retain that situation.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Whitelaw: Will the Leader of the House please state the business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Lord of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 5th DECEMBER—Supply [2nd Allotted Day]: debate on a motion to take note of the First to Tenth Reports from the Select Committee on Public Accounts in Session 1976–77 and the related Treasury Minute and Northern Ireland Memorandum.
Motion relating to the Sheriff (Removal from Office) Order.
TUESDAY 6th DECEMBER and WEDNESDAY 7th DECEMBER—Further progress in Committee on the Scotland Bill.
At the end of Tuesday, motion on the Amendment of Units of Measurement (Hydrocarbon Oil etc.) Order.
At the end of Wednesday, motion on EEC Documents on Energy Policy, R/77 Nos. 1955, 1959, 2347, 2348 and 2594, and a motion on EEC Documents on Nuclear Policy, R/77 Nos. 1901, 1956 and 1958.
THURSDAY 8th DECEMBER—Motions on Northern Ireland Orders on Emergency Provisions and Criminal Law, and on Appropriation, Electricity Service (Finance), Rates, Agricultural Wages, Supplementary Benefits and Road Races.
FRIDAY 9th DECEMBER—Private Members' motions.
MONDAY 12th DECEMBER—Supply [3rd Allotted Day]: the House will be asked to agree the Civil and Defence Votes on Account and the Winter Supplementary Estimates.
There will be a debate on a subject to to be announced later.
Perhaps I may add, Mr. Speaker, that, subject to progress of business, it will be proposed that the House should rise for the Christmas Adjournment on Friday 16th December until Monday 9th January 1978.

Mr. Whitelaw: Is it not a most extraordinary situation that when the Prime Minister goes next week to speak to the other Heads of Governments in the EEC he will protest that he is using his best endeavours to get the European Assembly Elections Bill through the House? Has not the Leader of the House triumphed, because apparently there will be no endeavours at all next week to advance that Bill? How on earth can the Leader of the House justify the Prime Minister's position? Of course, the Leader of the House can justify his own position, but I do not see how that can apply to the Prime Minister, who is supposed to be using his best endeavours.

Mr. Foot: The most extraordinary aspect of the situation is the right hon. Gentleman's excitement.

Mr. Whitelaw: I am not excited.

Mr. Foot: If the right hon. Gentleman is not excited after all, we have restored the status quo. If he is a little patient, he will see that we are proposing to make fresh progress with the Bill before Christmas. [HON. MEMBERS: "Which Christmas?"] This Christmas. We are making some progress today. We shall see what happens to the Bill, but we hope that we shall be able to make good progress before Christmas, and no doubt we shall be able to discuss next week the important question that was raised by the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Whitelaw: The Government keep pretending that they intend to use their best endeavours, but that is not true. Nothing is happening at all. One cannot have a best endeavour, or even an endeavour, when one does not seek to make progress on a Bill but goes ahead with other matters. Let me put this to the right hon. Gentleman without any question of my becoming excited: if the right hon. Gentleman proceeds in this way, the blame for not meeting the target date on direct elections will lie entirely on the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House.

Mr. Foot: I understand the right hon. Gentleman's sensitivity, if not excitement, on this subject. No doubt that will be one of the aspects that will crop up in the debates we shall be holding on Tuesday of the following week. I hope that if we proceed then, I shall have the right hon. Gentleman's congratulations on the success of my best endeavours.

Mr. Terry Walker: Will my right hon. Friend consider holding before Christmas a debate on the proposed plan by British Airways to buy foreign aircraft to replace the present fleet? If he cannot arrange a debate, will he ask the Secretary of State for Trade to make a statement in the House?

Mr. Foot: I understand the interest of the House and of my hon. Friend in this matter. I cannot promise a debate unless there is an opportunity through some of the various ways that are open to hon. Members before Christmas. No doubt there will be a statement, if that is thought desirable by the House. I emphasise that there are other opportunities for discussing these matters before we depart for Christmas.

Mr. David Steel: Since the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has made it clear that the Opposition are keen to use every means possible to help to obtain direct elections—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that the Opposition were displaying their best endeavours. Since this enthusiasm is being displayed, will the Leader of the House undertake, if possible, to try to obtain before Christmas the decision of the House on the system of election for the European Assembly?

Mr. Foot: It would be sensible for the House as a whole, in view of the controversies that surround this matter, to settle that matter before Christmas. We are prepared to take steps to try to ensure that that happens, and the arrangements can make that perfectly possible.

Mr. Donald Stewart: In view of the great anxiety felt in all parts of the House, will the right hon. Gentleman arrange an early debate on the steel industry?

Mr. Foot: I am second to none in this House in my interest in the steel industry,

and I know that that interest is shared by many hon. Members. I cannot promise a debate before Christmas on the matter generally, but it is a matter that at some stage will have to be debated thoroughly in the House.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Will my right hon. Friend say how soon the House will debate the Town and Country Planning General Development (Amendment) Order 1977, on which there are already motions tabled by hon. Members on both sides of the House—motions pointing to the serious effects on conditions in our towns and, potentially, in the countryside?

Mr. Foot: I cannot promise a debate on that matter before Christmas, but we shall examine the opportunities that are open. There are other opportunities for debate, apart from those provided by the Government.

Mr. Molyneaux: With regard to a matter that is far more important than legislation on European elections, namely the Northern Ireland business on Thursday, will the Leader of the House use his best endeavours to ensure that a business motion is tabled to permit the House to extend the time for such debate up to three-and-half hours on the Appropriation Order?

Mr. Foot: I shall do my best to ensure that we have adequate time for that debate. We have reached agreement on these matters on previous occasions in the interests of hon. Members from Northern Ireland, and indeed of hon. Members in all parts of the House. I hope that we shall be able to take a similar course next Thursday.

Mr. McNamara: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I share his enthusiasm for the direct elections Bill but that it is strongly rumoured that there is a possibility of a Merchant Shipping Bill being introduced if we get the direct elections Bill through quickly? Can he give an assurance that if that legislation comes forward, it will be introduced in this House and will contain no penal clauses to which trade union hon. Members might find objection and which would spoil an otherwise perfectly acceptable Bill?

Mr. Foot: I shall not comment on what my hon. Friend said about penal


clauses. I understand the representations that he, other hon. Members and trade unionists have made on this subject and proper account will be taken of them. The Merchant Shipping Bill figured in the Queen's Speech. We could not give an absolute guarantee that we would get it through this Session, but it is very high on the list of measures that we should like to get through and the speedier the House can be in dealing with some other matters, the better will be the chances of proceeding with the Merchant Shipping Bill.

Mr. Crouch: Will the right hon. Gentleman have second thoughts about the business for next week? On the face of it, the business looks not just stupid but utterly ridiculous. Here we are, in the Government's expression, looking inwards to our island problems of Scotland and Ireland—but not daring to look overseas to Europe. Are the Government so half-hearted in this matter?

Mr. Foot: If there is any absurdity here, it is in the hon. Gentleman's comments. We are debating today the Bill to which he referred. We shall be debating it again before Christmas. So it is absurd to suggest that the House is not getting plenty of time to proceed with the Bill. We may have to have further time later. It is much shorter than some other Bills. It is absurd, when we are discussing the Bill today, to suggest that we are not giving attention to it.

Mr. Whitehead: My right hon. Friend seems to have promised all but two and a half days of the available time before Christmas, but could he find one day in the last week before the Christmas Recess or in the first week after our return for a debate on the Services Committee's report on secretarial and research services, bearing in mind the constraints of the financial year which may necessarily delay any scheme that is approved?

Mr. Foot: I cannot promise that debate before Christmas, but I promise that we shall have it at a fairly early stage after we return. We are committed to it and it would be wrong for the House to delay the matter. I believe that the House should have the chance to approve or disapprove the report—I trust that we shall approve it—before the

new financial year starts so that we can operate in the way suggested in the report.

Mr. Rhodes James: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that when the House debates the rate support grant order we shall have a full day's debate and not a half day as we had last year?

Mr. Foot: We are seeking to provide a full day for the debate.

Mr. MacFarquhar: In view of my right hon. Friend's answer to the Leader of the Liberal Party, can he undertake that if progress in Committee on the direct elections Bill is not very fast during the two days already promised, he will consider assigning a third day before Christmas?

Mr. Foot: I do not know about assigning a third day if we are to carry out our obligations on other subjects, including, for example, a debate on the rate support grant order. However, there is another method by which my hon. Friend's request might be met, namely the suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition last week. That could be considered. It is much better for the House to proceed with the debate today and see how that progresses and then make up our minds about how we approach the matter the week after next.

Mr. Rossi: Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that a full one and a half hours is given to the Prayer against the Town and Country Planning (General Development) Order in which there is considerable interest inside and outside the House? Will he also ensure that the debate is held on the Floor of the House and not in Committee?

Mr. Foot: I shall have to look at that proposition before giving any undertaking.

Mr. Jay: Is it not extraordinary that when the Conservative Party professes to be using its best endeavours to get the direct elections Bill through, it has not thought it worth while to impose an effective Whip today?

Mr. Foot: As my right hon. Friend knows, I never like to inquire too closely into the delicate matter of whipping on either side of the House.

Mr. Bowden: Has the right hon. Gentleman had the chance to study Early-Day Motion No. 105 in my name on the urgent need for a settlement of the firemen's pay dispute? Will he concede that this is a constructive motion, and will he find time for the House to debate the dispute, because I believe that some useful ideas will be forthcoming from all parts of the House?
[That this House, fully aware of the desperate need for the settlement of the firemen's pay dispute, urges Her Majesty's Government to call an immediate joint meeting composed of employers' representatives from the local authorities, Government Ministers and officials of the Fire Brigades Union to discuss the ending of the dispute based on a formula comprising: (a) immediate payment of 10 per cent., (b) reduction of the standard working week from 48 to 42 hours per week, (c) payment of substantial compensation for personal injury or loss of life, and (d) during the three years 1978 to 1980 to increase the basic pay of a qualified fireman to not less than the average male industrial wage plus 10 per cent. and this level to be maintained from 1981 onwards.]

Mr. Foot: I am not sure whether such a debate would be the best way of dealing with this matter. We had a debate on the subject under our emergency procedures a week or two ago. That was the right way to proceed then. We shall have to see what develops.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Will my right hon. Friend arrange a debate on the misuse by the Government of discretionary powers granted under the Industry Act and other measures which were specifically designed to sustain and maintain employment, but which are now being used to threaten workers who have negotiated agreements above 10 per cent?

Mr. Foot: I do not accept what my hon. Friend says about the misuse of such powers by the Government. I refer him to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister a few minutes ago.

Mr. Peter Walker: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the Early-Day Motion in my name and the names of 70 right hon. and hon. Members from both sides of the House concerning legal aid to

handicapped persons against whom Government Departments have made appeals? In view of the statement of the Attorney-General that the Government are unwilling to extend legal aid to t these people, will he arrange an urgent debate on this topic?
[That this House deplores the fact that when the Secretary of State appeals against an award to a handicapped person, an award that has been confirmed by the Medical Appeal Tribunal, the legal costs of the Secretary of State are met out of public funds whilst the handicapped person, no matter how impoverished, is not entitled to any form of legal aid, and urges the Government to take immediate action to remove this intolerable burden upon handicapped persons.]

Mr. Foot: I certainly appreciate the importance of this matter. I know that the right hon. Gentleman is raising one aspect of it in an Adjournment debate during the week. What he has proposed is a more elaborate proposition than the matter that he may be raising directly. There are opportunities before the recess for hon. Members to raise exactly this sort of matter. Some hon. Members—I do not include the right hon. Gentleman in this category —sometimes underrate the possibilities that exist for them to raise some questions.

Mr. Henderson: Is the Leader of the House aware that there will be considerable disappointment inside and outside the House that he has not seen fit to give us the right to make a decision whether Sheriff Thomson should have the right to come to the Bar of the House and that the right hon. Gentleman has put the debate on at an hour that is not appropriate to its constitutional importance and has given no indication that he is prepared to extend the time to allow more hon. Members to discuss this matter thoroughly? Should not Sheriff Thomson at least have as fair a trial as he has given others in the Sheriff Court?

Mr. Foot: I suggest that the debate should be extended until midnight. That is some extension. However, I say to the hon. Gentleman and all others concerned with this matter that Parliament has laid down the statute under which the dismissal of a sheriff in Scotland can take place. That was incorporated in an Act passed through the House in 1971. The


Secretary of State has abided exactly by the procedures laid down in that Act. The debate will be taking place in exactly the form laid down in the 1971 measure.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is a statement and a Standing Order No. 9 application to follow. I shall call one more hon. Member from each side of the House.

Mr. Molloy: Is my right hon. Friend prepared to find time to discuss the behaviour of publicly-owned industries which provide services to the general public and which seem to be neglecting the social aspect of their responsibilities? One example is the proposal of the Post Office to abolish the 2p call in public call-boxes and to substitute a 5p call, which would make life very difficult for many pensioners and others on low incomes.

Mr. Foot: I appreciate the general importance of the matter raised by my hon. Friend, particularly in the preamble to his question. It is undoubtedly a matter that could be raised during one of the various times allotted by the House for such matters. It could be raised before the Christmas Recess.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: If the level of pay settlements is to reflect the level of unemployment and inflation in this country in the next nine months and if, as the Prime Minister says, 80 per cent. of working people support a level of pay increases not above 10 per cent., can the Leader of the House arrange for a statement to be made on how the Government intend to get over the problem that most trade union leaders feel bound to ask for substantially more than 10 per cent. in a way that will be detrimental to their members?

Mr. Foot: The hon. Gentleman raises a general economic question that has figured in debates that we have already had in this Session. No doubt it will figure prominently in many of the economic debates that we shall have throughout the rest of the Session.

Mr. Dykes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise for interrupting, Mr. Speaker, and I do not want to question your decision to limit questions on the business to 10 minutes to 4 o'clock. However, the Leader of the House has

totally surprised the House by announcing that the House will not sit in Committee on the European Assembly Elections Bill next week. In those circumstances, would it not be reasonable to have a few more comments on this subject to register the disapproval of the House?

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Neil Marten.

Mr. Marten: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I raise the same point, but from a different point of view. I see that there is a motion on the Order Paper that we should go on until any hour tonight. As I shall be one of those who will go on until any hour tonight, would it not be appropriate to get in a few more questions now, as it is we who will suffer? I think that this is an issue of fairly big importance as a general principle. Questions should be allowed to go on for a little longer if the House is subsequently going on for a long time.

Mr. Speaker: I must be fair to the House and let the hon. Gentleman get to his subject of direct elections.

Mr. Pym: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we on the Opposition Benches appreciate his forthcoming response to the Leader of the Liberal Party, when he indicated that he thought it would be useful and a good idea if the House decided the method of election to the European Assembly before Christmas? The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the only way in which that can be done is by tabling a motion to take Clause 3 out of time. Will the right hon. Gentleman indicate when he intends to put such a motion on the Order Paper?

Mr. Foot: If I may be permitted to reply to the right hon. Gentleman—I do not know whether he was raising a point of order—the only way in which the matter can be dealt with before Christmas is not as the right hon. Gentleman describes. After we have seen how the debate proceeds today, it may be evident when we come to the matter the week after next that we shall be able to have a debate without any special motion being tabled.

Mr. Humphrey Atkins: The right hon. Gentleman must know that that will not happen.

Mr. Foot: It could perfectly well happen. I do not know whether the Opposition Chief Whip has issued a threat. I do not like to hear such words emanating from the right hon. Gentleman. He has almost threatened that it will not happen. The way in which debates develop does not depend solely on propositions made by the Government. If it becomes evident that there is no chance of settling the matter before Christmas, I shall consider seriously the proposition that the Leader of the Opposition put forward last week. However, I think that it is much better for the House to proceed in the way that I have described. I shall consider the other proposition if we are not to settle the matter in the way I have outlined. Whatever view may be taken by the House, whether it is against the proposition of the regional list or for it for example, I believe that there would be considerable advantage for the House as a whole if a decision could be reached before Christmas.

Mr. Marten: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My right hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench keep on pressing for speed on this issue—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman address his point of order to me? His Front Bench colleagues are not my responsibility.

Mr. Marten: I apologise, Mr. Speaker. My Front Bench colleagues keep on presing for speed on the European Assembly Elections Bill. Do you think, Mr. Speaker, that you can somehow bring your pressure, which is considerable, to bear upon the Europeans to cause them to make up their minds about the pay of these Members? I ask that question—[Interruption.]—because the Minister has said—this is not a silly point—that we must decide that issue before the Bill goes through.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has been here a long time and he knows that he has got away with two sentences more than he should have been allowed to utter.

Sir Bernard Braine: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If I may, I wish to refer back to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes). Of course, I do not wish to question your ruling, Mr. Speaker, that business ques-

tions should come to an end when you said. However, I am sure that you must now be aware, Mr. Speaker, that there is a growing dissatisfaction on both sides of the House about the way in which the business of the House is conducted. To allow no more than 20 minutes of effective questioning of the Leader of the House on the way in which the business is to be arranged for the coming week, and for weeks ahead, is. I suggest, to prevent expression of the deep dissatisfaction on the part of many hon. Members, with the result that the real views of hon. Members are not being heard on the Floor of the House. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to consider whether it should not be normal practice to allow, as long as there are hon. Members willing to ask question, at least an hour and a half for business questions on Thursday.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Ronald Bell.

Mr. Ronald Bell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You said, Mr. Speaker, that you would allow one more question from each side of the House. After that you allowed my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) to ask a question urging that another day should be wasted on a Bill that no one really wants—in spite of all the fuss and noise that is made about that Bill. As you allowed your own ruling to be broken by one, Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether you would allow a counter-balance by another question being put from an hon. Member who does not want to see the time of the House wasted.

Mr. Speaker: On a previous occasion I indicated that when I say I shall take one more question, or two more, from either side of the House, that is not counting the Front Benches if they wish to intervene again. As for the length of time given for questions, I fear that if we allowed an hour and a half under the conditions that the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) suggested, the time would be filled—and the questions would not all be about the business for the following week, which is technically what we are discussing.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Mrs. Hart.

CROWN AGENTS

The Minister of State for Overseas Development (Mrs. Judith Hart): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the Crown Agents.
I am today publishing the report of the committee which I appointed in 1975, under the chairmanship of His Honour Judge Fay, to
inquire into the circumstances which led to the Crown Agents requesting financial assistance from the Government.
These terms of reference involved the committee in detailed examination of events which were complex and spread over a period of years. I am most grateful to Judge Fay and his two colleagues for the impressive way in which they carried out this heavy task. Their report is of the greatest value and the Government and the Crown Agents accept the report as a fair and searching investigation into the facts.
Simultaneously, I have published a statement giving the Government's reactions to this report. Annexed to the statement is the report of the earlier inquiry into the Crown Agents under the chairmanship of Sir Matthew Stevenson. This report is relevant to the events described in the Fay Report, and is quoted in that report. The Government have therefore decided, with the agreement of Sir Matthew Stevenson and his colleagues, that it is now right to publish the earlier report. I have, of course, consulted the right hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood) and the Opposition on this matter.
Hon. Members will no doubt be studying all these documents, and I do not want to go over the ground again now. But the House will expect me to mention the salient points. First, the Fay Report shows that a serious state of affairs was allowed to develop over the years up to 1974. As a result, the Crown Agents incurred losses which are likely to prove to be over £200 million. As the Government statement says, we accept the report's conclusion that there were serious shortcomings on the part of the Crown Agents, and that Departments and other outside agencies contributed to the failure to prevent losses.
These losses have led the Government to emphasise on several occasions that they stand behind the Crown Agents.
A Government grant of £85 million was made in December 1974, and we shall be ready to put proposals to Parliament as and when further assistance is necessary. As a result, the Crown Agents' overseas principals need not fear that any part of the funds that they entrusted to the Crown Agents will be lost.
I must stress that the Crown Agents' traditional functions played no part in causing these heavy losses, nor have they been harmed by those losses. The losses arose solely from
an unwise decision to operate as financiers on own-account",
to use the words in paragraph 422 of the Fay Report. That course of action has now been decisively reversed. The Government statement summarises the corrective action that my predecessors and I have taken since 1974 in respect of defects in the relations between the Crown Agents and Departments which the report identifies as major factors in the disasters.
There was uncertainty over the Crown Agents' status and relationship to the Government. These have been defined. The Government were receiving wholly inadequate information on the Crown Agents' affairs. New arrangements now ensure that we get full and regular reports. Whereas there was insufficient control or direction by Ministers, clear directives now exist, and I am consulted by the Crown Agents on all major policy decisions. I am therefore confident that nothing like the events described in the report could ever happen again. I lay great stress on this, because the Crown Agents' future in providing valuable services to their principals depends on it.
However, we cannot leave past events there. The question of responsibility for what went wrong needs more specific investigation than the Fay Committee was able to give it. The Prime Minister is therefore setting up a Committee of Inquiry under the Chairmanship of Sir Carl Aarvold with the following terms of reference:
In the light of the Report of the Fay Committee to assess the nature and gravity of any neglect or breach of duty by individuals which may have occurred in the Crown Agents, the Ministry of Overseas Development, the Treasury, the Bank of England and the Exchequer and Audit Department.
That inquiry will mark the end of a sorry chapter in the Crown Agents' long


and otherwise distinguished history. Looking to the future, I am confident that under their present Board the Crown Agents can maintain and develop their traditional services soundly and successfully, to the benefit of all their principals.

Mr. Luce: As the Minister implied, her statement and the three public reports are not only of great importance but are extremely complex. She and the House will readily understand that it would be difficult to give a detailed reaction to them now. Nevertheless, it is surely important to get the matter into perspective without minimising the gravity of mistakes made over the last few years.
I should like to reinforce what the Minister said about the growing success of the traditional services of the Crown Agents, which have expanded in range during the last two or three years. It is well known that the Crown Agents provide a good service to under-developed countries and serve over 100 Governments and 200 public authorities. It is right that much of the credit for this success should go to the present chairman, Mr. John Cuckney, and his management team. I therefore suggest that a sharp distinction should be made between the success of the traditional services of the Crown Agents and the sad story that has arisen from the decision that the Crown Agents made in the 1960s to operate as financiers on their own account.
These so-called own account activities have been—as the Fay Report said—a saga of incompetence and inaction. It arose largely from the failure of the Crown Agents to adjust to their modem rôle and conditions. The Crown Agents are not properly accountable in the sense that a statutory authority is accountable in terms of financing and its way of carrying out business. I understand that the Government view is that this requires legislation to put it right. I do not want to make any commitment on that for my side of the House, because many of us have a distaste for legislation. Will the Minister say whether it is the Government view that there is a need for legislation?
I wish to ask a question about the use of taxpayers' money. The statement indicated that the accumulated losses of the Crown Agents were more than £200 million. How long does the Minister

expect that it will take the Crown Agents to carry out a complete disinvestment policy in secondary banking and in property? Has the £85 million grant been fully utilised? Can the Minister say more specifically whether further taxpayers' funds may be required to eliminate the deficit and whether, in future, those funds will be recoverable in loan form?
The Minister made a point about the establishment of a committee of inquiry. That is a major decision. Will procedures enable full safeguards to be provided for individuals against whom allegations may be made? Will the Committee be held in public? This is a matter of great importance to the individuals concerned because it appears that it will be an administrative rather than a judicial committee.
I should finally like to ask the Minister, in view of the great importance of her statement today, to pass on to the Leader of the House our view that there should be a debate on these matters as early as possible.

Mrs. Hart: I am grateful for what the Opposition spokesman has said about the importance of the traditional rôle of the Crown Agents and for his full recognition that this rôle has been increasing in its value to other countries—not only to the richer developing countries but to some of the poorer ones. I am most grateful for that because probably the whole House would want it to be made clear that in looking at the disaster of these own-account activities of the Crown Agents we are aware of—and here I endorse entirely what the hon. Gentleman said—the success of the board under Mr. Cuckney. We now have enormous confidence in him and his board.
We believe that legislation is needed. As can be seen from the statement, we now have a set of directives and working arrangements that are totally accepted. However, they are not actually enshrined in legislation and we believe that they should be. We want to legislate as soon as possible, but until then we are content that we have the arrangements in a secure enough form to make everything work with full accountability.
As for how long it is likely to take for the Crown Agents to disengage from some of their disastrous own-account


activities—with some of which they are still involved—there is a full account in the Fay Report on that. However, I know that the Opposition spokesman and hon. Members have not had time to read it because we had to publish the report as a Return to the Commons and therefore there has been no opportunity for the report to be studied since 2.30 p.m.
Answering the hon. Gentleman, the length of time required varies. In respect of the Australian involvement it will take some time, and it is right that it should, because a better result may be forthcoming because of that. The time needed varies according to the investments.
As for the grants, there is an £85 million grant and a £50 million Bank of England standby. The £85 million is now intact and has not been drawn upon, but we have no doubt that eventually it will be needed. Certainly, if any further money were needed we should come to Parliament for permission to use further taxpayers' money, but it is difficult to know now what the situation will be.
The Committee will be an informal one, sitting in private. There have been similar inquiries in the past.

Mr. McNamara: Rubbish.

Mrs. Hart: The Fay Committee was asked to look into the events leading up to this enormous catastrophe of the Crown Agents. It was not asked to consider what steps the Government might or should take in relation to particular individuals involved in the Crown Agents, or in any of the Departments involved. This inquiry will be concerned with those matters. It has a dual nature. There are some people who will need to have their credentials cleared, to have their innocence established, and there are others against whom it may be that this inquiry will say that some form of disciplinary action might have to be taken. This needs to be inquired into. That is why the Government came to the view that this should take place.
The inquiry will sit in private. Anyone attending it will have the right to take with him either a legal adviser or any other person he wishes. It is not a formal inquiry under the 1921 Act. We shall see how best to deal with its conclusions when we receive them.

Sir G. de Freitas: Will my right hon. Friend remember that some of us who, in the course of public duty abroad and since, have regularly advised the developing countries to use the Crown Agents, will look for even greater affirmation by Ministers of the guarantees and services which these developing countries can expect to find in the Crown Agents in future?

Mrs. Hart: I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. When I visit developing countries who have not hitherto used the services of the Crown Agents I find that they are ready to do so and that the Crown Agents' reputation among their overseas principals stands extremely high.

Mr. du Cann: While congratulating the right hon. Lady on the decision to publish these documents and to continue her inquiries, may I ask her to be good enough to bear in mind the point of view, which I think is finding increasing acceptance in this House that the remedy to these matters lies not in a succession of inquiries but rather in establishing in this House a better form of control of expenditure? Is she aware, concerning the Exchequer and Audit Department, that the whole House has total confidence in its ability as an audit department—

Mr. English: After this!

Mr. du Cann: —but that what is needed is to provide this House with a better investigative tool, to which end that Department should be greatly strengthened?

Mrs. Hart: The right hon. Gentleman will recall that I was sufficiently anxious about the accountability to this House of the Crown Agents as to seek to give evidence to his Select Committee. My offer was not accepted because it was traditional to receive evidence only from civil servants and not Ministers. I accept that. This question of public accountability is the kernel of the whole situation. One of the problems was that before we took steps to remedy the relationships between the Crown Agents, the Ministry of Overseas Development and Parliament, the accounts of the Crown Agents were not laid before Parliament. Had they been laid before Parliament, something would have happened more rapidly, and there would


have been greater knowledge of what was happening. This is the crux of the matter.

Mr. George Cunningham: Will my right hon. Friend accept congratulations on her personal perseverance in bringing this sorry tale to a full exposure? Is she aware that one sentence in this admirable report, in paragraph 327, reads oddly because it says that no one could have known in November 1973 that the skies were about to open and the deluge to fall, although that was the very month in which the former Conservative Minister responsible was told publicly in the House of Commons that there was a scandal here which was waiting to blow?
Is my right hon. Friend also aware that, although this report has exposed a large number of culprits in the story, there is one culprit which does not get blamed in the report, and that is the House of Commons? Does she recall that the House of Commons had a Committee which initiated an investigation of the Crown Agents, with great difficulty, as a result of my right hon. Friend's action and mine with the assistance of the Conservative Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler) in December 1973? Yet that same Committee, in May 1974, when it could have done tremendous work, decided quite irresponsibly to suspend its investigations.

Mrs. Hart: I can confirm what my hon. Friend says, up to the point of May 1974, when I was no longer serving in the Department. I well remember the efforts some of us made in the preceding period to have a full investigation made by the Select Committee on Overseas Development. I confirm that entirely. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said about my rôle in the matter. There is one other aspect with which I know he will agree since he was one of the hon. Members who played, with great distinction, a part in the exposé of the Crown Agents which led to the setting up of the Fay Committee. In the Committee's report there is talk of a catastrophe and it is said, talking of the time when the Crown Agents had extended themselves in their "own account" activities to the point of capacity,
It had been a time of euphoria in the fringe banking and property speculation world.

Land investment, land speculation, was a fashionable speculation at the time but in a different economic climate it was to prove a major embarrassment. Of course it is this which basically led to the catastrophe.

Mr. Edward Gardner: If the Minister considers, as she apparently does, that it is necessary and desirable that the financial functions and operations of the Crown Agents should continue and be preserved, may I ask her to say what steps she is now prepared to take to deal with the defects and anomalies which are so well identified and commented upon in this report?

Mrs. Hart: When the hon. and learned Gentleman has the time to read the Government statement he will see appended to it—and it takes up quite a lot of space—all of the statements that have been made to the House of Commons on the subject of the Crown Agents over the past two years. The hon. and learned Member may be interested to know that during the period 1909 to 1973 only 18 parliamentary Questions were asked in this House on the subject of the Crown Agents. That gives the background flavour of the concern of the House and the responsibility of the Crown Agents to it.
The hon. and learned Member will also find appended one of the statements which I think was made in July 1974 in which I gave a directive to the Crown Agents to disengage from property. He will find other statements that make it clear that, despite the fact that we have not yet got legislation, remedial action has been taken. I am quite convinced that in the relationship between the Crown Agents and myself and Parliament we have now got the correct accountability which ensures that this kind of thing can never happen again.

Mr. Skinner: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that this is one of the biggest Establishment scandals of all times and that this gang who ran the outfit known as the Crown Agents made the train robbers look like petty thieves? Is it not high time that my right hon. Friend came to the conclusion—unlike the one she has given us today—that she ought to get these guilty people into court instead of setting up another secret committee in which the elitist group can get together


again for a considerable period of time in the hope that many of the guilty people will disappear?
Will my right hon. Friend answer the other question which I have put to her many times before and which relates to the Crown Agents? When are the Government to tackle William Stern, who had £40 million worth of Crown Agents' money, taxpayers' money? When will they make sure that he is put into bankruptcy, as he should be, like other people who fall into disrepute in the way that he has?

Mrs. Hart: My hon. Friend knows, because I answered a question from him a little while ago in relation to Mr. William Stern, that there are full details of all his involvements in the Fay Committee Report. The Crown Agents have taken the formal steps necessary prior to the institution of legal proceedings that could ultimately lead to a bankruptcy petition against William Stern. The Crown Agents have gone as far as they appropriately can at the moment. There is no doubt about the concern everyone has about furthering these proceedings, if that is what is ultimately decided.
As to the rest of what my hon. Friend says, the Director of Public Prosecutions has studied the Fay Report, the supplementary report and the report which is mentioned in paragraph 73. Proceedings are being taken against one person. On the question of exchange control offences, these are still under investigation, and everything that can possibly be done in this context by the Director of Public Prosecutions is being done. Of course, some of the people who worked for the Crown Agents are no longer within that body—

Mr. Skinner: That makes no difference.

Mrs. Hart: —and they are not thought to be liable to criminal proceedings. There are, however, possibilities for civil proceedings in some cases. Everything that should be done in terms of the law is being done.

Sir M. Havers: I invite the Minister of State to reconsider the form of inquiry. The choice of chairman is admirable, but the Royal Commission on Tribunals of Inquiry, the Salmon Report, stated that

this sort of inquiry could lead to many injustices. A whole number of departmental officers and officials are referred to in the terms of reference, and what worries me is that with this type of inquiry, rumour breeds on rumour, the whole thing is done in secret, and those called before the inquiry do not know what it is all about. One ends up with the difficulty that there will be a real risk of injustice. I ask the Government to reconsider the type of inquiry that is to be set up.

Mrs. Hart: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will recognise that this has been the subject of the most careful consideration by the Government. There were various possible ways of inquiring further into whatever arises from the Fay Report in terms of individuals. It was only after the most careful consideration, and with full consultation with my right hon. Friends the Attorney-General and the Lord Chancellor and the Civil Service Department, that in the end, by balancing the pros and cons of different forms of inquiry, we came to the conclusion that this was the best form of inquiry.
We felt it was important that it should be in private, partly because some of the individuals concerned will want to establish that their rôle in the matter does not call for any condemnation whatever. The publicity attached to a public inquiry could lead to people against whom one would not wish to level any criticism being brought through this process. On the other hand, where there might be a possibility of neglect or omission of duty we thought it was best that the proceedings should be in private. There will be two other members of the inquiry, neither of whom will be civil servants.

Mr. Skinner: Put me on it.

Mrs. Hart: We have to leave it in that way. Every possibility was most carefully considered.

Mr. English: This report is surely conclusive proof, if such were necessary, of two conclusions of the Expenditure Committee on the Civil Service. First, there is no one in the Civil Service who is responsible for its efficiency as a whole, and, secondly, the report proves that the present system of public audit is out of date. Paragraph 127 of the report states,


for example, that there were many occasions when the auditors did not notice that some money had got lost. I ask my right hon. Friend to say in the severest terms—in private, at least—that our recommendations on audit and efficiency should be replied to, on the lines that something undoubtedly needs to be done in relation to the Government as a whole, not merely the Crown Agents or her Department.

Mrs. Hart: My best answer to my hon. Friend is to say that I have been very interested in his report and some of the conclusions that his Committee reached. I do not think that I can go beyond that. I shall not say that I have the report at my bedside every night, but almost.

Mr. Hordern: I, too, congratulate the new chairman of the Crown Agents on his excellent efforts in staunching what was a very serious situation. I ask the Minister of State to bear in mind the provisions of Department of Trade reports on business activities, and some of the dissatisfaction that has been expressed at the nature of those reports. Will the Minister of State ensure that the evidence that is brought before the Aarvold Committee is produced before the individuals who are asked to give evidence, and that they should be allowed to comment on it before the findings of that Committee are published?

Mrs. Hart: I am certain that that would be the way to conduct this inquiry. That would be the way to proceed on natural justice. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his tribute to Mr. Cuckney, who has been going into the position since the beginning of October 1974. Before he could put things right he had the job of discovering what had gone wrong.

Mr. John Mendelson: Is it not extraordinary that with the exception of the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) the questions that have been put to my right hon. Friend are almost entirely questions which, after the scandalous revelations by my right hon. Friend, have been concentrating on how people can be protected, what procedures might be adopted to see that nobody should be revealed to have committed the wrongs that they have com-

milted? Is it not my right hon. Friend's first duty to say here and now what she is going to need more money for? She said in her statement that the Government may have to ask for more taxpayers' money at a time when the country finds it impossible to meet the claims of firemen and others who need money urgently.
Will my right hon. Friend herself, or through the Leader of the House, give an assurance that a debate will take place before the Christmas Recess, in which the Government, without waiting for a further committee and years of inquiry, can give their full revelations, beyond the published report, of their own attitude towards culpability, whether those revelations are later justified by the report or not?

Mrs. Hart: My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is sitting next to me, and I am sure that he is taking full note of the desire of hon. Members that there should be a debate on this matter fairly soon. I am equally certain that it is impossible for the House to consider the matter in depth today, because people need a chance to study the documents. My hon. Friend will find that some of the questions he has raised about the precise way in which the figure of £200 million was arrived at are set out in a good deal of detail in the Fay Report.
Not all of the money has yet been drawn down, but we have to take account of the fact that there is a deficit of £200 million, and therefore it might be necessary to draw down £85 million, and, indeed, it might be necessary to draw down more. It rather depends on the degree to which the Crown Agents are able to disengage themselves at a reasonable pace and with success from some of the commitments they entered into. This point is indeterminable at the moment.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. May I appeal to the House? I will do my best to call those hon. Members who have been standing throughout. It would be unfair to the House if questions and answers were very long.

Mr. Kershaw: Sometimes when a business goes into receivership it is necessary or desirable to carry on for a time in


order to realise the assets in the best way. Will the right hon. Lady give an assurance that that will be done in this case for the best business reasons and not in order to meet some parliamentary timetable which would otherwise be desirable?

Mrs. Hart: That applies to the disengagement from the Australian investment. That is why disengagement may take some little time.

Mr. Spearing: My right hon. Friend and I were both members of the Select Committee on Overseas Development in autumn 1974. Does she recall the part played by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) in initiating that inquiry? How much of the information then elicited is in the Fay Report? Has she any comments on that evidence and its future use?

Mrs. Hart: I do recall that period and, as I have said, the tremendous rôle played by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) in this matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) will find most of the evidence he has referred to in the Fay Report. It is an extremely detailed report. Every word has to be read—there is no stuffing. It is all valuable material.

Mr. Ronald Bell: While the function of the Crown Agents in the world is extremely important and is rightly buttressed by assurance from Her Majesty's Government, will the right hon. Lady realise that the loss of £200 million of public money is not something that can be disposed of by a statement at 3.30 p.m. and a private inquiry?
Will the right hon. Lady also give consideration to the fact that it began to look as if the private inquiry was going to be mainly concerned with culpability? While that is interesting, do we not need to know how the Crown Agents are to be conducted more successfully in the future? I realise that she cannot give details, but will she, if she can, in the broadest outline, give us an idea whether the Crown Agents are to make financial and investment decisions themselves in future and have the staff to do it, or whether they will rely on commercial

banks? How will this be done in a way which will not result in another £200 million of our money being lost?

Mrs. Hart: I am not in the least trying to dispose of a loss of £200 million by a statement after Question Time. That is the last thing in the world that I would want to do. My own reports, the Fay Committee's Report, and the fact that they are before the House are evidence of that. This is one of the most serious betrayals of public accountability of which the House can have been aware in many years. If the hon. and learned Gentleman familiarises himself with the statements I have already made, and those made by my predecessors, he will see the way in which matters are now on a better footing. Perhaps he can question me again when he has had an opportunity to read these statements.

Mr. McNamara: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we all admire the rôole that she and my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) have played in this matter? That being so, is she further aware that we cannot understand why this new inquiry has to be in private? Is there to be fresh evidence to that inquiry which was not provided to the other inquiries? Why is there need for people to be put under a cloud of suspicion for the rest of their lives because they have been called to a private inquiry? That suspicion arises even if people are cleared, because there is always suspicion about why someone was called before such an inquiry in the first place. Are we to have any published reports from the Aarvold Committee? Is not this procedure a denial of open government? Has not enough dirt been shovelled over the years on this issue? Why should we have another establishment cover-up?

Mrs. Hart: It would have been the easiest thing for the Government to say, "We will not have a further inquiry." We took the view that that would tend to be a cover-up. We therefore decided that there must be a further inquiry. Then we had to consider exactly what kind it should be. It was largely to protect innocent individuals that we decided that it should be in private. My hon. Friend will recall, from his familiarity with earlier inquiries which were public, that there is no doubt that the moment someone is called before a public inquiry


there is a certain aura—the name is there. If he is an innocent individual, that is not right. That is why we took the view that this inquiry should be in private.

Mr. Body: Is the right hon. Lady in a position to give an unqualified assurance to the House that any employee of the Crown Agents, either past or present, will not have proceedings brought, or any promise that no proceedings will be brought, against him until further inquiries are over?

Mrs. Hart: All proceedings that are possible have already been taken or are the subject of investigation by the Director of Public Prosecutions. I say to hon. Members that it is no good taking the analogy of a court in this matter. When they have read the Fay Report in detail, they will see that there are possibly individuals, possibly Departments—not totally specified in the report—some of whom may prove to have conducted themselves admirably and some of whom may not have done. One cannot say that one should bring someone before a public inquiry when one is not charging him. The Committee of Inquiry will make further proceedings on the matter sub judice, as the existing charges brought by the Director of Public Prosecutions are already.

Mr. Litterick: Paragraph 389 of the Fay Report tells us simply and clearly that much of the reason for this disaster lay in what it calls "incompetence". Can my right hon. Friend tell us how many Crown servants have been sacked for this incompetence? If there were any, on what terms were they sacked? If none has been sacked, why not?

Mrs. Hart: The main answer to that is that those who might have been sacked have already left the employment of the Crown Agents.

Mr. Crouch: Is the right hon. Lady aware that what will disturb the public so much in this whole affair is that the Crown Agents were able to get away so far, to the extent of £200 million? Is she also aware that the public must also be very concerned about the fact that there was a misunderstanding in the past, before her time in office, on the part of the Crown Agents, a Government agency, that it was effectively accountable to Parliament? Will the right hon. Lady

say that the Committee of Inquiry will be looking beyond just this particular case of the Crown Agents as an agency and will be looking into the situation of other agencies and bodies which are now Government agencies and bodies, which should be made much more effectively accountable to Parliament in future?

Mrs. Hart: On the hon. Gentleman's first point, the difficulty has been in part —not wholly—the constitutional relationship and the lack of definition in that. The Crown Agents, as Fay described them, were an emanation of the Crown and there was no responsibility to Parliament and no responsibility to the Minister. That has been remedied. We shall legislate to make certain that that is written down.
On the hon. Gentleman's second point, the answer is "Yes". I am glad that the hon. Gentleman asked the question. As soon as the Fay Report was received, the Treasury considered this matter, in consultation with the Civil Service Department, very urgently indeed. The object was not to establish whether any other public sector organisation had incurred massive liabilities to third parties. There is no reason to believe that any other public bodies are in that position. What it seems essential to consider is whether there are bodies which ought, perhaps, to be subject to tighter monitoring and controls and to make sure that there is no looseness or lack of clarity in the relationship which could allow the non-accountability of the Crown Agents to appear in any other sphere.

Mr. Greville Janner: Does my right hon. Friend not agree that the position of the Crown Agents is anomalous in many respects? Can she assure the House that if the Crown Agents cease to be an emanation of the Crown, the Crown Agents as such will be liable to prosecution, as are all other bodies that are not in that position, and not merely the individuals who have acted for it?
Will my right hon. Friend also assure the House that this body will be under the political control of the House so that no longer shall we have the situation that the Crown Agents supply goods to the armed forces of General Amin saying that they are not responsible to the House at all because they are a private body serving


their customers, and when we ask for details about whom they are serving and why, they say that it is confidential and none of the business of the House?

Mrs. Hart: My hon. and learned Friend will want to study what I have said on an earlier occasion about the precise method by which we hope to legislate on the Crown Agents. Indeed, it was my predecessor who made it quite clear. My hon. and learned Friend will find there that the line of responsibility is laid out absolutely clearly.
On the second point, I rather think that, as my hon. and learned Friend knows, there are other problems involved in the particular point that he has raised, and I do not think that he would wish me today to go into that very fully.

EXECUTIONS (BERMUDA)

Mr. Hooky: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the impending execution tomorrow, Friday 2nd December, in Bermuda, of Erskine Burrows and Larry Tacklyn.
That the matter is urgent there can be no dispute. This is the final opportunity for the House to debate the matter before the men are hanged. No amount of debating after the event can be of practical consequence, and if we do not proceed to discuss it today, it will be too late.
That the matter is specific, I submit, is self-evident. I am concerned that the House should debate the intention by the Government of Bermuda to hang these two men tomorrow, and the serious consequences that may flow from that decision.
That the matter is sufficiently important to take precedence over other important business of the House I would argue for reasons I shall now give. We are the guardians of the human rights of all citizens of the United Kingdom and of our dependencies overseas. No right can be more fundamental than the right to life itself. Bermuda is a Crown colony, a non-self-governing territory, and we have solemn obligations under the Charter of

the United Nations for the welfare and well-being of citizens of that territory.
The House has argued many times on the subject of the abolition of capital punishment in the United Kingdom and has come to the conclusion that that punishment should be abolished in this country. I think, therefore, that if there is any question of using this punishment in a dependent territory, the House should debate the matter before any execution proceeds.
Secondly, this particular case has aroused acute public controversy in Bermuda, so much so that Members of the Bermudan Parliament, members of the Progressive Labour Party, have travelled 5,000 miles to London to press that this Parliament should debate the matter.
A petition signed by 6,000 people was presented to the Queen asking for clemency. Six thousand people, I remind the House, in the context of Bermuda is equivalent to 6 million signatures if collected in the population of the United Kingdom.
Thirdly, although the death sentence is mandatory under the law in Bermuda, I understand that no hanging has been carried out for more than 30 years. It seems remarkable that after three decades there should be a decision to reintroduce this barbaric punishment. There is reason to believe that if that is done, it will create very serious racial tension in that territory. Arising from that, I believe that there is some reason to think that the hangings could give rise to a severe threat to public order, and it would be a very grim irony if the results of these executions were to lead to disturbances in which there might even be further loss of life.
The Western world in recent years has launched a great international debate on human rights, and very properly. Some people will regard it as rather cynical if this House could not spend three hours at least to consider a matter concerning the life and death of two people in a dependent territory when we have from time to time, perfectly properly, been severely critical of the behaviour in relation to human rights of many individual Governments throughout the world. I submit, therefore, that this is a matter which the House should very properly and urgently debate.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr Hooley) gave me notice before 12 o'clock this morning that he would seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the impending execution tomorrow, Friday 2nd December, in Bermuda, of Erskine Burrows and Larry Tacklyn.
The House knows that I am required by the provisions of the Standing Order to decide whether the matter is proper to be discussed, but not to give any reasons for so deciding.
In this instance I have to remind the House that it has never been in order to debate the exercise of the Royal Prerogative in connection with a capital sentence while the sentence is pending. This rule is stated in general terms in "Erskine May", on page 428 of the current edition, and it has been affirmed many times in my own presence in the House by my predecessors in relation to the exercise of the Prerogative of Mercy in dependent territories. In the circumstances I am not able to submit the hon. Member's application to the House.

Later—

Mr. Thorpe: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hope that you will allow me, whilst accepting that I am not in any way challenging your ruling, to revert as a matter of general application to the matters raised by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley). I accept totally your ruling, having myself made a similar application some 12 or 14 years ago with the late Sydney Silverman in the case of Riley, when we were similarly advised by Mr. Speaker Hylton-Foster that the exercise of the Prerogative was not a matter that could be the subject of debate. Therefore, I do not seek in any way to challenge what you have said.
The House seems to be in this difficulty, though. The House clearly has strong feelings on this issue. We are dealing with the Creech-Jones rules, which, I understand, indicate that the Governor exclusively makes the recommendation to Her Majesty and the exercise of the Prerogative is a matter which cannot be debated. At the same time we are also dealing with what is a dependent ter-

ritory for which the House is ultimately responsible.
In my view, if the Government were to take the view that there was something wholly wrong and contrary to public policy for different penalties to be exactable in different parts of those territories for which we are responsible, whether it be in Bermuda, the Isle of Man, Rhodesia, or any other place, and the Government indicated that it was their intention to introduce legislation on the matter, that would be a very proper reason for a recommendation to be made to Her Majesty without a debate in the House that the executions at least be suspended while the House had time to consider the introduction of legislation.
It is with the possibility of having equality of treatment throughout all those territories for which we have a continuing responsibility that I ask you whether any indication has been given to you and, if any indication is given to you, whether we might be allowed to have a statement either by the Home Secretary or by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on this issue.

Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. No representation has been made to me. My personal feelings are never involved in a ruling. I am guided by precedent, and that was not an easy ruling for me to give to the House this afternoon.

CROWN AGENTS

Mr. John Mendelson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the loss of more than £200 million through the operations of the Crown Agents.
I make this application, Mr. Speaker, although I have not had an opportunity, as I otherwise would have had, to let you know earlier in the day that it was my intention to do so. But in doing so I am returning, as you, Mr. Speaker, and the House will know, to a good earlier tradition whereby on many occasions matters have been brought to the notice of the House and the nation at a time


when nobody could in advance make up his or her mind whether the Adjournment ought to be moved.
I want to link this also with another earlier practice, which to my regret and the regret of many other Members has fallen into desuetude. That was the possibility in days gone by of immediately adjourning all other business before the House to indicate the particular gravity of the information presented to the House by a member of the Executive.
I know that other procedures have been introduced to replace that earlier right of Members of the House of Commons. Question Time is one of those procedures. But, as you know, Mr. Speaker, many of those who know a great deal about the procedures of the House hold the view that this replacement is no real substitute for the earlier power of Parliament to deal immediately with something that has arisen, and to do so in such a way as to indicate to the nation at large, not so much to other Members of the House, the grave view that the House or Members of the House take of the news, the report and the submissions that have been received from a member of the Executive.
I therefore must make the application in a somewhat modified form. We all know that there would have to be a certain limited delay imposed by you, Mr. Speaker, if you were to accept this application. It would now probably be the beginning of next week before such a debate could be held, because it has not been your custom in recent years to arrange such a debate for a Friday.
My first reason for claiming urgency is that it would be an indication to the nation that the report received this afternoon from the Minister has not been received as a routine matter which can be handed on to a committee of inquiry that will sit in private but that there is an immediate reaction that regards this as such a grave scandal, of such grave proportions, that some action should be immediately initiated by the House.
My second reason for making this application is this. If a debate were to take place on Monday, over the intervening three days right hon. and hon. Members would be perfectly capable of studying

the report published this afternoon and of consulting additional material, and it would be possible for the nation to see that the terms of the inquiry were subject to scrutiny by the House of Commons and that no delay occurred. If a debate were arranged at a later date, it might be argued that by demanding a debate one was postponing the setting up of the committee of inquiry and the starting of its work. No one in the House wants the country to believe that any of us would wish to postpone the immediate work of the committee of inquiry, although many of us may be dissatisfied with the terms under which it is to work. For instance, if hon. Members wish to argue that it should be a committee that works in public and not in private, they should be able to do so without delay.
There is one other reason why it is urgently necessary to accept the motion and to allow a debate to proceed without delay. Everything that Parliament does has meaning only, as we all know, if it is understood by and is in tune with the mood of those outside in the electorate. The mood outside is very much concerned with matters of public expenditure and with arguments that are being adduced by the Executive on the impossibility of granting claims that many of our citizens have at present. Let it at least be seen that every kind of possible and potential demand that the Minister has indicated for further public money will be scrutinised immediately and without further delay.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) has rightly exercised the privilege of hon. Members who seek to move the Adjournment of the House on a matter that has arisen without the House having warning before 12 o'clock.
I listened with great care to the hon. Gentleman's arguments in which he claimed urgency and the importance of the subject in general. I have said when I have rejected other applications that it is for me to decide not whether a matter should be debated but whether it has urgency and should be given priority. I am persuaded that the House should have an opportunity to discuss this matter. Does the hon. Member have the leave of the House?
The leave of the House having been given—

The Motion stood over under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) until the commencement of public business upon Monday next.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Ordered,
That the National Ports Council Provision of Funds Scheme 1977 (Confirmation) Order 1977 (S.I. 1977, No. 1725) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Coleman.]

Orders of the Day — EUROPEAN ASSEMBLY ELECTIONS BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. OSCAR MURTON in the Chair]

4.54 p.m.

The Chairman: The first amendment I propose to call—

Mr. Douglas Jay (Battersea, North): On a point of order, Mr. Murton. I hope that at the outset of the debate we may have your guidance on a vital issue.
It appears from the notice in the "No" Lobby that you have not selected, for reasons I do not know, a number of important amendments. As this is by common consent a crucially important constitutional Bill, I think that you will agree that it is essential that major constitutional issues should be fully debated in the House before we take a decision. None of us would wish to have anything like a repetition of what happened on the European Communities Bill when very few amendments were called, no amendments were agreed, and the guillotine was imposed at an early date. That has left a sour taste in the mouths of right hon. and hon. Members and of the country.
I have in mind a number of amendments on pages 422 and 423 of the Amendment Paper in the names of a number of my hon. Friends and myself. All of them raise important constitutional legal questions affecting the election of Members of the EEC Assembly if the Bill is passed.
I call your attention to Amendment No. 6, in Clause 1, page 1, line 8, after first "the" to insert "advisory and supervisory". You will be aware, Mr. Murton, that Article 137 of the Treaty of Rome describes the Assembly as "advisory and supervisory", no doubt in order to make clear that the Assembly has no legislative power. As that is one of the major issues concerning this Bill, surely the words "advisory and supervisory" should be considered by this Committee.
Amendment No. 8 deals with the question whether Members elected in accordance with this Bill when it becomes an Act should be named in a resolution of the House of Commons before they take part in the procedures of the Assembly. Amendment No. 9 provides that a writ of this House must authorise the election of a Member to the Assembly.
The other amendments I have in mind are Nos. 10, 11 and 12, which raise various issues, including the question of the expenses that will be incurred by Members of the Assembly, the emoluments they will receive and whether such emoluments should be much higher than those received by Members of this Parliament. Whatever we think of the amendments, the issue with which they deal will arouse great interest in the country. It would be unfortunate, and we might hear further allegations of elitism and goodnes knows what, if this issue were not even discussed here.
I am not aware whether you, in your wisdom and discretion, Mr. Murton, have refrained from calling the amendments on the ground that they are out of order, or whether it is simply the case that they have not been selected. It would help the Committee to know—because, after all, we may have to table a good few other amendments—which of the amendments were out of order and which have simply not been selected at your discretion and the reasons for the decision in each case. It is essential for us to know that. Whatever the reasons be, I hope that it is in order for me to urge you very strongly to reconsider your decision not to call the amendments.

Mr. Neil Marten: rose—

The Chairman: Is this further to the point of order?

Mr. Marten: Were you about to reply to the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), Mr. Murton?

The Chairman: Not at this moment.

Mr. Marten: I should like to support what the right hon. Gentleman has said, particularly on Amendments Nos. 12 and 13. I take as my text the reply of the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on 24th Novem-

ber. When asked whether the Government planned
to make any representations in the Council of Ministers about the proposed pay for European Members of Parliament",
the hon. Gentleman said:
We have made clear our view that this is a matter which should be decided before the first elections are held and which needs full and careful consideration by the member States." —[Official Report, 24th November 1977; Vol. 939, c. 883.]
The Leader of the House gave a similar reply, but I cannot recall the Hansard reference.
5.0 p.m.
If it is the Government's view that amendments dealing with the question of pay and allowances of the Members of the European Assembly, if any, should be fully discussed by member States—which means member Parliaments—I do not see how we can possibly do that if the amendments are not called. It is rumoured that the pay is to be £25,000 a year plus enormous allowances, and that is quite shocking to any hon. Member, but the amendments present us with an opportunity to discuss the question. I do not think that the House of Commons should give a Third Reading to the Bill until the pay and allowances and conditions of Members of the Assembly are laid down and we know what we are voting about.
There is also the question of the taxation of the pay of Members of the Assembly. I have tabled innumerable questions to Treasury Ministers to discover whether the pay and allowances of MEAs, if any, will be subject to United Kingdom taxation. Selection of the amendments would enable us to discuss these matters. Therefore, I ask you kindly to reconsider your decision, Mr. Murton, not to call them.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I rise further to the point of order raised by the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) and before you, Mr. Murton, have replied to him, because I gathered that you thought that it might be more convenient to hear further submissions on essentially the same point, to which I am sure you will have given attention.
There is no question—and I am sure that it was not involved in the point of order raised by the right hon. Member


for Battersea, North—of challenging or inquiring into the reasons for the exercise by the Chair of its function of selection. Normally there is no essential ground on which the guidance of the Chair needs to be sought in open Committee on the question of order. However, on this Bill it is of material importance to the Committee to have guidance from you, Mr. Murton, on the rules of order in accordance with which certain amendments may have been found by you to be out of order.
You will recall, Sir, the events surrounding the commencement of the Committee stage of the European Communities Bill in 1972. May I remind you of the ruling of your predecessor in the Chair at the time? When it was drawn to his attention that a series of major amendments had not been selected, he indicated that they had not been selected because they were out of order. In other words, it was not in the exercise of his discretion to select, but, because he was bound by the rules of order, those amendments, which were major amendments going to the principles and varying the modalities of the Bill, had not been selected by him. He said:
The reason for this is the nature of the Bill itself. The Bill, as the Explanatory Memorandum says, is one which makes the legislative changes which will enable the United Kingdom to comply with the obligations entailed by membership of the European Coal and Steel Community, the European Economic Community and the European Atomic Energy Community, and to exercise the rights of membership."—[Official Report, 29th February 1972 Vol. 832, c. 269.]
Your predecessor made it clear that, since the scope of the Bill and the purpose of the Bill were to make legislative changes to enable this country to comply with the obligations entailed in membership of the Community, it would be out of order for those amendments to be debated which were not in accordance with these obligations or with the exercise of these rights. Certainly many of the amendments which hon. Members at that time would have wished to move and, indeed, wished to carry went to the nature of the obligations and of the rights implicit in membership of the European Community.
It is true, Mr. Murton, that your predecessor on that occasion referred to the Explanatory Memorandum, but the subsequent debates, both on that day and on the following day, made it clear that

it was not the Explanatory Memorandum, which in itself can be of no authority, but the Long Title and the scope of the Bill, as the Chair saw it, which were, in the view of the Chair, the binding consideration.
I have refreshed my memory of the Long Title as an indication of the scope of the 1972 Act. It ran:
An Act to make provision in connection with the enlargement of the European Communities to include the United Kingdom.
In other words, in the view of the Chair the House was simply considering—and the phrase "nuts and bolts" may still be in the memory of some hon. Members —how to implement obligations which were indefeasibly implicit in membership and to secure rights which were equally indefeasibly implicit.
If it should be that some or all of the amendments put down to Clause 1 have not been selected on the ground that they are out of order by analogy or on the same grounds as amendments to the 1972 Bill to which I am referring, it would be of great moment to the Committee to understand that at this stage. Since you have indicated that you would find it convenient to have a fairly full submission at this stage, Mr. Murton, I shall proceed upon the assumption that, in some cases at any rate, the issue of scope was involved in the selection of amendments to Clause 1.
I should like to make this submission to you, Mr. Murton. It is not merely important—although it is important enough—in relation to the amendments that we may be able to debate to this Bill, but it is germane to the view which this Committee takes of the obligations which lie upon the Committee in consequence of agreements entered into by Her Majesty's Government.
The Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill begins with the words:
The Bill gives effect to the Decision of the Council of the European Communities and to the Act annexed to that Decision.
This, of course, is the decision of 20th September last year. If that sentence of the Explanatory Memorandum was an accurate description of the scope of the Bill, we might find ourselves in the same position as the Committee found itself in in March 1972. However, if one turns


to the Long Title of the Bill one finds that it is described merely as a Bill to
Make provision for and in connection with the election of representatives to the Assembly of the European Communities".
In drafting the Long Title, the draftsman, presumably under instructions, has deliberately avoided any reference whatsoever to any obligations which might have been incurred by Her Majesty's Government, or even to the rôles of the Assembly of the European Communities. On the contrary, it would have been possible for the Government to have brought forward this Bill, certainly a Bill with that Long Title, even if there had been no decision of 20th September. Since this House sends representatives—and it is our right, if not our obligation, to do so under the Treaty—we would be perfectly entitled to lay down our own procedure for electing these representatives.
My submission, therefore, is that the scope of the Bill and the indication of that scope given in the Long Title are such as to make it clear that we are not here legislating in order to comply with obligations and that we are in an entirely different situation from that in which we discovered ourselves when discussing the European Communities Act 1972.
Consequently, Mr. Murton, subject to your right of selection—which is not challenged—we should be free to consider any possible alternatives to the method or conditions of election and we are not bound to have regard either to the fact of the decision of 20th September 1976 or to anything which is contained in that decision.
You will apprehend, Mr. Murton, the great importance which many hon. Members attach to the ground on which it may appear that your decision has been taken upon the amendments which were tabled to Clause 1.
I make only one further observation, which I hope you will permit. As I suggested earlier, the whole context in which the Committee stage of this Bill will take place will be profoundly affected by the view which is taken of the relationship of this Bill to the obligations involved in membership of the Community or the obligations which may have been undertaken—although I think that they have not been technically converted by pro-

cedures under Clause 1 of the 1972 Act into a treaty—but which might have been undertaken by the Government in their international capacity.

Mr. Ian Mikardo: I venture to put to you, Mr. Murton, a narrow, specific point which concerns the amendments that have an effect on the pay and expenses paid to the elected members of the European Assembly. These expenses will come out of the budget of the European Community. Her Majesty's Government are the largest contributors to that budget.
As you will know better than any of us, Mr. Murton—because it is part of the important functions of your high office—it is one of the major duties of this House to control Supply and to exercise supervision over the expenditures of moneys by the Government. In their contribution to the budget of the Communities the Government will pay a substantial part of the salaries and expenses that are paid not merely to representatives of this country in the European Assembly but to all members of the European Assembly.
I appreciate that the totality of that pay and expenses is not a major part of the Communities' budget, but it is not an insignificant part, either. This Assembly will be quite a costly business, and we shall be paying a large fraction of that cost out of revenues provided by Her Majesty's Government. If we were not permitted to take a view about the level of pay and expenses we should be prevented from fulfilling the duty that lies upon the House to control Supply in respect of a not insubstantial piece of expenditure by Her Majesty's Government. Surely that could not possibly be right.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Bell: May I suggest, Mr. Murton, that it would be helpful to hon. Members if you could indicate the grounds upon which you have not selected some of the amendments? I urge that upon you, out of a number of considerations. One of them is that it appears possible that you may have different considerations in mind in considering different categories.
It would be helpful to hon. Members to know whether there were some amendments that you had not selected because


you thought them less appropriate to Clause 1 than to certain other clauses. As an example, there are Amendments Nos. 10 and 11. It might be that you did not regard them as out of order but thought that they might be more appropriately considered in another context. It would be helpful to hon. Members if they could be told whether that was the case. That would allow them the opportunity of recasting the changes they want into a form which is appropriate to the later clauses when we come to them.
On another category, I associate myself with what my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said. There are obviously doubts in our minds whether proposed amendments are being thought outside the scope of the Bill or outside the Long Title. You will know that there is a significant distinction between those two things. If some of these amendments, either as applied to Clause 1 or, perhaps, as reapplied to later clauses, were considered out of order because they were not accompanied by a proposed amendment to the Long Title, that is something that hon. Members should know in advance. It would be quite wrong if, as we moved through the Bill, an amendment on a clause that would otherwise be in order because it was within the scope of the Bill were simply not selected, without warning, because it was not accompanied by a proposal to amend the Long Title.
On the question whether particular amendments are within the scope of the Bill, I emphasise that the Bill is, by its Long Title, one to make provision not only for, but "in connection with" the election of Members to the European Assembly. There is no question of any decision of the European Communities in any case limiting the Bill, but there is no decision anywhere saying that we are all to have the same arrangements the first time around.
I know that the Treasury contains a provision requesting member States to formulate common arrangements, but nobody suggests that that part of the Treaty is being brought into operation for the moment. It is therefore for each State to formulate its own arrangements.
There are certain proposals on the Amendment Paper about pay and expenses which to me have no particular attraction on their merits. That is not

the point. The question is whether the Committee will go through this Bill and never be allowed to turn its attention to these considerations. It has been obvious in our proceedings over the last few weeks that these matters have a great attraction for certain hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, even if they do not have that attraction for me. It is right that these matters should therefore be canvassed.
It is obvious that when a new legislature is erected in the European Community, with elected Members and all the appurtenances that accompany it, there will be a substantial increase in the charge upon public funds in the United Kingdom, partly for the pay and expenses and partly arising from consequential matters. It is right, therefore, that the House of Commons in Committee of the whole House, which is by tradition the Committee of Supply of the House, should give its consideration to one matter, namely, the burden that will fall on British funds as a result of this change, if it be made.
If you can give your opinion on the general considerations which governed your selection of amendments, Mr. Murton—and that is obviously a matter within the prerogative of the Chair, and it would be wrong to dispute your decision in a particular case—it will enable the Committee to discharge its function in the fullest possible manner and without any sense of grievance that we have been taken unawares and have lost opportunities of proposing amendments that the Committee would like to discuss.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I join those right hon. and hon. Members who have made submissions thus far, and I am glad, Mr. Murton, that you are listening to our submissions before replying.
The heading of the selection describes it as "provisional", and therefore the intention is that it takes account of the convenience and the wish of the House. Therefore, I want to put some points to you. The last time this Bill came before the House there were, as the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said, points of order which lasted for 15 hours. I do not anticipate that happening today, but it illustrates the point that the rejection by the Chair of amendments that most hon. Members consider


relevant causes difficulties. On the previous occasion there was subsequently a half-day debate on that matter.
The Treaty that has been referred to is not in reality a treaty. The so-called decision was a decision requiring ratification, and, as I understand it, that ratification has not yet been made by the House. We are only now beginning that process. Therefore, we are bound neither by any treaty nor by the Long Title of the Bill, and therefore we may be concerned with the rights of the House in respect of these elections.
The Bill says that its provisions are
in connection with the election of representatives".
Can we entirely disregard the subsequent duties and obligations of those representatives? If we cannot debate those duties and obligations to the people of this country under this Bill, how and when can we discuss them? I submit therefore, that some of these amendments fall within the scope of the Bill, for discussion under the Bill.
Amendment No. 6 has been referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay). It relates to the duties of the Assembly, which Article 137 of the Treaty of Rome described as "advisory" and "supervisory". There has been some controversy in the House about this. Therefore, the inability to debate that amendment would have a bearing upon the scope and activity of any persons to elected.
But it is to Amendment No. 8 in particular that I draw your attention, Mr. Murton. As yet, we do not know whether this is a matter of non-selection or whether it is outside the scope of the Bill. I cannot see how it could possibly be outside the scope of the Bill, because it seeks to insert words to the effect that subsequent to elections this House shall name persons in a resolution. It goes on to say that any such resolution shall have effect for a particular time.
The amendment is proposed for two reasons. It is the long-standing tradition and right of this House to act as an electoral court. Indeed, pages 33 and 34 and part of page 35 of "Erskine May" deal with that very subject. The paragraph headings are
Proceedings of the House in matters of election".

followed by
Proceedings of House upon determination of election trials
and "Extensive corrupt practices". As hon. Members will know, the House no longer exercises—although it did at one time—its judicial functions in respect of elections. It has, through the Representation of the People Act 1949, set up judicial machinery for that very purpose. But, as I understand it, the Representation of the People Act 1949 would not operate in regard to this Bill, and unless the House maintained its fundamental right of acting as an electoral court, any dispute which arose from time to time in respect of elections would not be within the competence of this House. I submit, therefore, that in regard to the resolution of any difficulty this is a very valid point, and that the amendment is worthy of selection. Mr. Murton, if you regard it as in order.
The second part of Amendment No. 8 refers to such a resolution
having effect until the end of the fourth week of the Parliament following that in which the resolution was passed".
That means that if the mandate of this House in respect of the EEC were in any way changed as a result of a General Election, that resolution might or might not be renewed. I think that is a proper protection for this House to have in that respect.
Amendment No. 9 relates to the same subject but has more to do with by-elections. As we all know, it is the custom of a Member of the House to move a writ for a by-election to fill a casual vacancy. That. I hope, would remain in respect of this Bill, but if we are not allowed to discuss it or to put it in, I submit that that would no longer be the case. There are a number of matters for probing as well, because I understand that writs are issued by the Clerk of Crown in Chancery and that results are made known to him, and there may be some difficulties about the body to which such returns of returning officers were made, and as to the authority for the holding of elections by returning officers.
I submit to you, therefore, Mr. Murton, that provided the three amendments, Nos. 6, 8 and 9, which I have described, are in order—you will no doubt in due


course say whether they are or not—there is a very proper reason for their being debated. If they cannot be debated, I think there would be questions not only here but in the country as to the reasons for it.
It may be, as the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) said, that some people would think that these matters should be discussed elsewhere in the Bill and that the amendments should be placed in another part of it, but I submit that that would be an argument for their withdrawal or rejection upon such deliberation, and not necessarily a matter relating to selection, for if the Government or any other person were agreed that it should be taken up again at another time, that would be a matter for the House.
I hope that you will bear these matters in mind, Mr. Murton, in considering whether you will stay with this word "provisional", for some hon. Members feel that there is indeed some scope for reconsideration of this matter.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Max Madden: I do not think that anyone challenges the constitutional or, indeed, the public expenditure importance of the measure, and I think that the House owes it to the public at large to ensure that all mints of view are represented in discussing this measure in Committee.
I am sure that I shall not be challenged if I say that this measure does not enjoy universal support either inside or outside the House. Indeed, I am sure you will know, Mr. Murton, that less than half the Parliamentary Labour Party saw fit to support the measure in the Lobbies. There is great anxiety, suspicion and reservation about the Bill, both inside and outside the House, and it is most important that amendments should allow these matters to be discussed as fully as possible.
I understand that the provisional selection that has been made enables only two of the 14 amendments tabled on this clause to be selected. They were significant and substantive amendments, submitted by a number of right hon. and hon. Members of this House. I draw attention particularly to Amendments Nos. 10, 11, 12 and 13, which deal with

the pay and conditions of elected Members of the Assembly. This is an aspect on which there is widespread general public concern and anxiety, and the House should be given an opportunity of discussing these matters in Committee.
In making this argument I call in aid the paragraph in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum dealing with the financial effects of the Bill and the effects on public service manpower, where it says that
The cost of elections held under the Bill is likely to be at least £10 million every five years. This is mainly attributable to payments for election staff and to postal charges for the free delivery of candidates' election addresses. It will be necessary for local returning officers to recruit temporary staff for duties at polling stations and for the count, but the effect of the Bill on permanent public service manpower will be minimal.
I am sure that there will be many reservations, both inside and outside the House, concerning the basis of that statement, but it indicates that the act of election is central to the measure and is therefore extremely important in considering it.
I ask for your reconsideration, Mr. Murton, of the non-selection of the amendments that I have indicated, as I believe that many hon. Members are very concerned about the basis on which Members are to be elected to the European Assembly. They are very anxious to discuss the substantive matters that are described in these amendments.

Mr. Richard Body: May I be very brief, Mr. Murton, and refer you to two amendments which have not been selected, and also say why this causes some concern in all parts of the House? The amendments are Nos. 22 and 23. Although they are in the name of only one hon. Gentleman —the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker)—I think that they command a very great deal of support.
I submit to you, Mr. Murton, that it must be a question for this House, and this House as a whole, who should be the representatives to be elected and how they are to be selected. This House should not have its hands fettered in any way in wishing to extend representation to others for whom we are constitutionally responsible in the European Assembly.
I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman, in drafting the amendments, has included the Falkland Islands. I recognise that that may well be out of order, because the Falkland Islands are outside Europe, and the Treaty of Rome specifies very clearly that no one who is a non-European is eligible to be associated with the European Economic Community—

Mr. Powell: No. There are the Turks.

Mr. Body: Any country from outside Europe is excluded from membership of the Community. Gibraltar will be very much affected by the forthcoming developments of the European Economic Community. This is obvious if the Community is to be enlarged so that there are 12 members instead of nine, as at present.
Therefore, for so long as we have any responsibility for those who live in Gibraltar we should, on this occasion at least, have the opportunity of debating and deciding whether any representative from Gibraltar should be allowed to attend the Assembly. I am not arguing that it should be so, but I submit that the House of Commons ought not have its powers fettered in deciding whether Gibraltar should be represented here.
It may be that you, Mr. Murton, see some procedural defect in the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Perry Barr. The hon. Gentleman may be at fault in including the Falkland Islands. However, in replying to these points of order perhaps you will indicate whether the amendment would be valid if the Falkland Islands were excluded and whether, if that were done, you would allow an amendment similar to Amendments Nos. 22 and 23 in order that the Committee could have the opportunity of deciding whether Gibraltar should be represented at the European Assembly.

Mr. Roger Moate: I should like to add my request for assistance and guidance on the selection of amendments. In doing so, I express my thanks to you, Mr. Murton, for your courtesy and patience in listening to the points that have been made, but I am sure that you will understand the importance of these matters.
I wish to refer particularly to Amendments Nos. 12 and 13, which have not been selected. They relate to the pro-

posed levels of remuneration, fees and expenses of representatives in the European Assembly. I understand that on a number of occasions in the past the Government have given assurances that it would be opportune, during the proceedings on the Bill, to discuss this subject.
The non-selection of Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 has come as something of a surprise. Otherwise, one could have gathered the material to indicate the assurances that had been given. However, I distinctly remember asking the Prime Minister about the level of pay of Members of the Assembly, and he said that it would be a matter suitable for discussion during the progress of the legislation. Indeed, I think that the Leader of the House gave similar assurances.
It may be that the non-selection of these amendments indicates not that this subject is out of order but that it may be more appropriate for a later stage. Your guidance on that point, Mr. Murton, would be helpful.
The importance of this matter can be in no doubt. I think that the Committee and the general public would be surprised if we were prevented from discussing this subject. I am not criticising your selection, Mr. Murton. However, I think that there would be serious criticism if this vital and sensitive matter were not to be discussed. After all, it concerns the relationship between the House of Commons and the future European Assembly. I think that this is a matter of the utmost importance both to the House of Commons and to the European Assembly.
In considering why Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 had not been selected it occurred to me that it might be argued that the Bill relates only to the election of representatives, not to the terms and conditions under which they will serve. If that were the argument one could turn to the later clauses of the Bill and point to the provision for disqualification of members of the European Assembly. If certain conditions can cause a member to be disqualified, surely it is proper to lay down other terms and conditions for his service.
I also wondered whether it would be argued that these financial matters had been covered by the Money Resolution and were therefore no longer germane


to the argument on the Bill. The Money Resolution provides only for expenses connected with the election procedure. It in no way touches on the costs thereafter incurred by these elected representatives. It seemed to me that this matter of great importance both to the Committee and the country should be discussed in depth here.
I do not feel that I have made a partisan point in what I have said. I suspect that those who are enthusiastic and those who are not so enthusiastic supporters of the legislation would like to feel that the subject was aired fully in this Chamber during the debates on the Bill.
For that reason, Mr. Murton, and knowing your concern for protecting the rights of Back Benchers and the public outside, I hope that you will give us some guidance on the reasons for the non-selection of these amendments, indicate how these matters might be raised at some other stage or, bearing in mind that this is a provisional selection, reconsider the selection that you have already made.

The Chairman: This might be an appropriate moment for me to reply to the submissions that have been made by right hon. and hon. Members on the selection of amendments.
Before saying anything further, I should like to comment on what was said by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). I was deeply interested in his very full exposition of the point that he made. My judgment in this matter is simpler than his regarding the scope of the Bill. "Scope" is really the operative word on which I have to make a judgment.
I gave the greatest possible consideration to these matters before the Committee met this afternoon, because I appreciate the views that have been expressed to me by right hon. and hon. Members.
I have been unable to select the amendments to Clause 1 that have been mentioned this afternoon because they are not in order. It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I give my reasons. I can do that by taking, first, Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 and consequential amendments to Clause 2 which were tabled by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker). Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 are, in my view, quite outside the scope of the Bill,

the sole purpose of which is to deal with the election of United Kingdom representatives. In view of the arguments that have been advanced, I stress the words "United Kingdom".

Mr. Jay: On a point of order, Mr. Murton—

The Chairman: I am dealing with a point of order. However, if the right hon. Gentleman wishes to interpolate another point of order before I go any further, I am quite willing to accept it.

Mr. Jay: The point simply is that the Long Title says not "Make provision for and in connection with the election of representatives of the United Kingdom to the Assembly of the European Communities", but,
Make provision for and in connection with the election of representatives to the Assembly of the European Communities.

The Chairman: With respect to the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), I am resting my argument not on the Long Title but on the question of scope.
I shall continue with the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment No. 8. In my view, that is out of order because, as drafted, it puts a specific and mandatory obligation upon the House of Commons to follow a certain course. The House is the master of its own procedure. Therefore, such a provision is not appropriate to legislation.
Amendment No. 9, tabled by the right hon. Gentleman, deals with the machinery by which the electoral process is started, and that is not within the scope of Clause 1. I suggest, however, that amendments of this purport could quite properly be tabled to Clause 7 and Schedule 1, paragraph 3. I hope that on this occasion the Chair has been helpful.
5.45 p.m.
Amendments Nos. 10, 11, 12 and 13 —again in the name of the right hon. Member for Battersea, North—are all, in my view, as drafted, outside the scope of the Bill, which deals with the manner in which representatives are elected but does not cover their behaviour once they have been elected. Amendments Nos. 10 and 11, however, seek to impose a disqualification, and something along their lines might be offered as amendments to Clause


9 and Schedule 1(5). Again, I hope that that will please the Committee.
Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 are additionally out of order—this is a very important point—in that they contain taxing provisions, which cannot be made without a Ways and Means Resolution, as has been pointed out in the course of argument.
Although it was not mentioned, for Amendment No. 14, in the name of the right hon. Member for Down, South, to be fully effective, it would need further consequential amendments in those sections of the Bill which deal with by-elections.
That leaves the Chair with Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 6, mentioned by the right hon. Member for Battersea, North, and certain starred amendments. In these cases I have exercised my power under Standing Order No. 33 not to select. As the Committee knows, this power is entirely discretionary and I exercise it as best I can.

Mr. Eric S. Heller: I have tried to follow your remarks closely, Mr. Murton, but I am not clear on one thing. You said that Amendments Nos. 10, 11 and 12 were outside the scope of the Bill, but later you said that they could possibly be amendments to Clause 9. I am not clear about that. If they are outside the scope of the Bill, surely they cannot be raised in any way. Perhaps you meant that they were outside the scope of this clause. If that is what you meant, I am happy to accept your word, but I am not clear just exactly what you meant.

The Chairman: Since the amendments contain something of a disqualification element it would be possible for something along the lines that I suggested to be included.

Mr. Ronald Bell: I am grateful to you, Mr. Murton, for your ruling. As I understand it, Amendments Nos. 10 and 11, which I mentioned particularly, might in an appropriate form be appended to later stages of the Bill. May I raise with you again the question of Amendment No. 8, which you have ruled must be out of order because it appears to require the House to pass a resolution

and the House is master of its own procedure? I should like to make two points. First, the House is not required to pass a resolution which enables it to do this thing by resolution. Secondly, there are many precedents for Acts of Parliament doing just this. At the moment I can remember only one. That is the one that sets up the parliamentary Boundary Commission. You will remember, Mr. Murton, what a time we had with regard to that provision in that Act when the present Prime Minister was Home Secretary and the Commission reported that the Government would not move the appropriate resolution in this House.
I have not had time to check my recollection, but I believe that there were even proceedings in the courts to try to force the Home Secretary to present the resolution in the House. But certainly the parliamentary Boundary Commission legislation and possibly the Local Government Boundary Commission statute adopted this procedure of putting the matter to a resolution of the House.
There has been argument whether the House must pass such a resolution. I know that there are other precedents and I know that they have been raised on this issue and that Mr. Speaker has either ruled or been invited to rule that in certain cases the House must pass certain resolutions.
Therefore, there can be nothing out of order in an Act of Parliament providing for something to be done and provisions to be made by a resolution even when the statute appears to be mandatory. But in this case my submission is that the amendment is not mandatory; it is merely permissive. Of course, the House need not nominate any Members to the European Assembly. For some time it did not do so in relation to the Government party, because they did not want to be so nominated. Although others were, it would have been perfectly competent for this House not to nominate anyone. That being so, and while there obviously remains in you the proper discretion of the Chair simply not to select an amendment, I submit that on ample precedents and on a proper interpretation of the wording of the amendment, the amendment cannot be out of order.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

The Chairman: May I deal with this point, because it is rather complicated? If one were to follow the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) along that line, and if that amendment were to be agreed to, it would basically have the effect of making the Bill say that "the representatives…shall be named in a resolution of the House". That would be imposing a duty on the House. That is why I stand by the argument that the House must be the master of its own procedure.

Mr. Bryan Gould: Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton. I am sure that the Committee is grateful to you for your ruling and guidance on these matters. May I suggest one or two points for your consideration concerning the basic principles that have guided you in making your ruling—the principles concerning the scope of the Bill?
The Long Title uses the phrase: "The election of representatives" but I take it —I am sure most hon. Members would—that that phrase describes a possible procedure by which representatives eventually end up in the European Assembly. Obviously it must be a procedure which includes the casting votes and the choice of representatives by voters.
The Bill must necessarily, and indeed does, go far wider than simply dealing with the process of election. It begins, in Clause 7, as a means by which an election is to be initiated and includes the drawing up of constituencies, the appointment of returning officers and so on.
As the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) pointed out, it goes so far as to deal with the position of representatives who once elected and actually in office, decide to vacate their seats because they wish to qualify under the terms of the Bill. The scope of the Bill covers the whole procedure and process which is inadequately covered by the term "election".
If one looks at the amendments at issue at present one notes that Amendment No. 9 would clearly not be out of order; it would be within the terms of the Bill, just as Clause 7 is within the terms of the Bill. The amendment deals with the process by which an election is to be initiated.
If one looks at Amendment No. 8 one sees that it is a provision for further steps in the process by which a representative finds himself elected to the Assembly. It is a step—not in itself an election, but part of the general procedures covered by the Bill.
On the points concerning the inappropriateness of this type of provision and equally, part of the precedent cited by the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) it certainly would be within the competence of the House to instruct itself or to accept a duty for itself, even if in a subsequent Session a new Parliament might wish to take a different approach and pass new legislation vitiating that course. I find it difficult to understand why a provision of this sort might be out of order. There may be little point in it, except as a declaration by this Parliament that this is the method by which it envisages Members being elected to the European Assembly, but I find it difficult to understand why it should be out of order and I would be grateful for guidance on that point.
I understand the point about Amendments Nos. 12 and 13, but on Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 I would be grateful for guidance concerning ways in which this might be made in order. I take it that you, Mr. Murton, accept the point that I make concerning the scope of the Bill, extending to the circumstances that exist once the election is completed, and governing the situation, in the context of qualification and disqualification, in conditions under which elected representatives continue to hold office.
Provided that these amendments are framed within the terms of disqualification, surely they are in order and are within the scope of Clause 9 and, therefore, within the scope of the Bill.

The Chairman: The answer to the hon. Gentleman is that what he has said is broadly correct.

Mr. Jay: I understood that your view, Mr. Murton, was that this was a Bill concerned with the election of representatives and not their subsequent holding of office. Therefore, we can discuss the conditions under which they are elected but not the conditions under which they subsequently hold office. Surely your view


is not borne out by Clause 9 of the Bill, which is headed, in the margin.
Disqualification for office of representative to Assembly.
The opening words of that clause say:
—(I) Subject to subsection (3) below, and without prejudice to Article 6(1) (incompatibility of office of representative with certain offices in or connected with Community institutions)".
It then goes on to lay down, in effect, that if a Member of the Assembly becomes, for instance, a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, he is disqualified from continuing in office. Surely that is not a condition of his election. He may become a Lord of Appeal three years after the election. Therefore, it is a condition of his continuing to hold office. Surely it cannot be argued that the amendment is out of order because it provides that Members should hold office only subject to certain conditions.

6.0 p.m.

The Chairman: The argument here surely is based on the question of disqualification. The words I used, advisedly, were related to the question of behaviour. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman finds the way in which I put it is not wide enough. In fact I would have thought that disqualification was an essential part of the whole procedure in question on the clause being discussed.

Mr. Jay: As I understood it, Mr. Murton, the amendment was ruled out of order partly on the ground that it says "and shall hold office" and that the debate should be on the condition of election rather than the condition of holding office. But Clause 9 lays down conditions for the continued holding of office.

The Chairman: I think that my argument stands on the ground that it was in the wrong place in the Bill. If the right hon. Member studies what I have said I think he will find that his mind will be more at rest.

Mr. Ronald Bell: I refer to Amendment No. 8, Mr. Murton, on which you have given a ruling about the resolution being out of order because the House is the master of its own procedure. I apologise for the fact that I cannot remember

it, but there is undoubtedly a statute which imposes on the House of Commons the duty of passing a resolution in certain circumstances.
You are ruling Amendment No. 8 out of order not because it is outside the scope of the Bill but because it infringes the power of the House of Commons to regulate its own procedure. Therefore, I invite you to consider it on the same principle as you would consider the contents of a Government Bill imposing on the House the duty to pass a resolution in certain circumstances. Would such a Bill be disallowed on the ground that it infringed the power of the House of Commons to control its own procedure? The amendment leaves us entirely masters of our own procedure, and merely says that we must do something. I submit that you would not rule out of order a Bill that was brought forward by the Government imposing by statute the duty of passing a resolution. If that is so, the amendment is within the scope of the Bill and surely, therefore, must be in order.

The Chairman: I have the greatest admiration for the advocacy of the hon. and learned Member; in fact, I am lost in admiration. However, I am not lost so far that I cannot point out politely that he is dealing with a hypothetical situation.

Mr. Powell: May I, with great respect, thank you, Mr. Murton, for your careful and lengthy ruling, which is evidently of great importance and should be sufficient, in itself, to disabuse anyone of the notion that in raising points of order we are in any way wasting the time of the House or deferring proceedings, since our right or otherwise to move and debate amendments to a Bill of this sort is of the highest importance.
So important does this matter of scope appear to be that I wonder whether I may confirm that I have understood your ruling, Mr. Murton, that amendments to the Bill are not constrained or limited by the contents of the decision of 20th September 1976 and that the scope of the Bill is derivable from the Bill itself as presented. We are not in a position where we find ourselves confronted with the Bill of 1972 and other instruments limiting our power to decide under what conditions the elections shall be held. I hope that I have apprehended the point


correctly, because it is of great importance.

The Chairman: The right hon. Gentleman asked me two questions. In both cases the answer is "Yes".

Mr. John Ellis: Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton. You addressed yourself to a series of amendments, Nos. 2, 3 and 6. Amendment No. 6 deals with the phrase "advisory and supervisory". That matter is of the greatest importance in regard to the powers in the Bill affecting future actions by the Assembly. In respect of those amendments, you based your decision on Standing Order No. 33 and more or less left the matter there.
I have examined the matter and see that the Standing Order states that Mr. Speaker
may, if he think fit, call upon any Member who has given notice of an amendment, new clause or new schedule to give such explanation of the object thereof as may enable him to form a judgment upon it".
The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) may like to take advantage of the opportunity to press his point a little further in establishing that the Bill relates to a body which, in the words of the amendment, is "advisory and supervisory". It is of the utmost importance that we should not let these matters get out of hand.
Standing Order No. 33(5) states:
The powers conferred on Mr. Speaker by this order shall not be exercised by the Deputy Speaker save during the consideration of the business of supply.
I do not think that this is the business of Supply, although I stand to be corrected.

The Chairman: I must correct the hon. Gentleman, and I shall do so in the nicest possible way. Standing Order 33(3) says:
Mr. Speaker, or in a committee of the whole House, the Chairman of Ways and Means or either Deputy Chairman, may, if he think fit, call upon any Member to give such explanation".
Therefore, I have that power. I have formed my judgment on this amendment under the terms of Standing Order No. 33 as a non-selection. I think the hon. Gentleman understands that I have the right to do this. But I can throw out one crumb of comfort—namely, that the matter could be discussed on the Ques-

tion, "That the clause stand part of the Bill".

Mr. John Ellis: Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton. I was not trying to be impertinent when I referred to this matter. I was seeking clarification. I did not wish to lead you into trouble with Mr. Speaker.

The Chairman: I am greatly comforted by that. Everybody is being very kind.

Mr. John Ellis: Further to the point of order, Mr. Murton. Without wishing to trespass further on your kindness, may I say that on certain amendments you appear to be willing to spread your wings for the better understanding of hon. Members, and particularly on Amendment No. 6. One flies to Standing Order No. 33, but it appears to limit the extent to which we may try to understand the situation. Will you give further consideration to this matter?

The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman asks me to spread my wings. I am no angel, but I must stand by what I said earlier. I have formed my judgment on Standing Order No. 33, but no doubt there will be an opportunity afforded to the hon. Gentleman in the discussion on the Question, "That the clause stand part of the Bill".

Mr. David Stoddart: Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton. Standing Order No. 33 gives you discretion, which you have exercised. You have now gone a little further and said that the matters may be discussed when we debate the clause. However, what you are doing is taking away from hon. Members the opportunity to vote on that narrow point, and you are then advising them that, if they do not wish to pass the amendments, they should vote against the clause. That appears to be using a great hammer to crack a small nut. Since you have so far exercised your discretion against calling those amendments, will you give the matter more thought so that you may change your mind and exercise your discretion in favour of the amendments?

The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman is very persuasive, but the inherent power of selection is laid down by Standing Order No. 33. That is the reason why


it exists. I stand by what I have already said.

Mr. Moate: Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton. I appreciate the help and guidance you are giving the Committee, and I apologise for returning to Amendment No. 13, on which you have commented. In reply to the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Gould), you used the phrase "broadly so". I believe you were answering the point by saying that Amendment No. 13, possibly in another form, could be reintroduced when we come to Clause 9.

The Chairman: No. I think that the hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension. I held out that hope in regard to Amendments Nos. 10 and 11.

Mr. Moate: I shall be grateful, Mr. Murton, for your further clarification on this important point. It is not a minor matter but is of the utmost importance because it affects the level of remuneration of Members of the European Assembly. I am concerned with the good word and reputation of the Government. I find it hard to believe that they would have drawn the scope of the Bill so narrowly that their promises for this to be allowed to be considered could not be carried out. I hope that there will be some opportunity to raise this matter in a different form on another clause.
I should like to ask about your ruling on Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 and to inquire whether Amendment No. 13 involves a form of taxation. That amendment says:
and shall hold office subject to the condition that any payments, fees, emoluments, salaries, allowances, or expenses paid to them in respect of their office shall be paid by them into the Consolidated Fund".
It then goes on to deal with a resolution determining those payments in respect of their office as representatives. A form of taxation presumably involves the person concerned making a net payment over. That would apply only if the salaries paid to Members of the European Assembly were higher than those paid to Members of this House. That has not yet been stated categorically by the Government.

The Chairman: That is a possibility which has to be taken into account. It

is not for the Chair to say. I would remind the hon. Gentleman that these are taxing provisions. It means taking money out of the pockets of the taxpayer, and that could not be done without a Ways and Means Resolution. As regards any comment about the Government's view, that is not a matter for me.

Mr. Moate: Further to the point of order, Mr. Murton. I seek further clarification. Why is it that, expressed in a different form, it is not possible for the House to add to the reasons provided for in Clause 9? Surely it is possible to add to Clause 9. This is a matter of such fundamental importance to the course of debate that I hope you will give some helpful guidance on this matter.

The Chairman: If the hon. Gentleman could think of other reasons for disqualification, it would be in order for him to table the appropriate amendments. We shall see how we get on.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. This is an important matter about the scope of the Bill. I followed your ruling with great care, and I thought I was clear on them, but I am now bemused by the rulings that you gave to the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and to the hon. Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Ellis). Is it not the case that the scope of the Bill—in terms of amendments and the extent and range of debate—derives from the Long Title of the Bill in the usual way.
The Long Title of the Bill to which the House has given a Second Reading by a substantial majority says
To make provision for and in connection with the election of representatives to the Assembly of the European Communities.
That can mean only that the Bill is concerned with the method and conduct of elections and that the amendments and possible alterations to the Bill must be within those confines. The House has given a Second Reading to the Bill on those principles, and the amendments must be concerned with the method and conduct of elections only.
In that context, Mr. Murton, will you assist in clarifying whether Amendment No. 8—which seems to contemplate an election or other procedure authorized


by the legislation—will be outside the scope of the Bill if it seeks to extend the Bill to include a procedure other than an election, because that would be inconsistent with the Long Title? Would not any attempt to move amendments designed to alter or limit the powers of the Assembly be outside the powers of the Bill? It seems that the scope of the Bill is limited to the election of representatives. The Bill could not take within its scope a power to seek to limit the powers and activities of the Assembly to which Members had been elected as representatives, neither could it limit what the representatives did when they got there.
Turning to Amendment No. 1, Mr. Murton, which you have selected, can you clarify—

The Chairman: Order. Quite apart from my ruling on Amendment No. 8—which, in addition to the flaw which I indicated, is not entirely clear in its intention—I might be able to assist, although I do not want to break into the flow of the hon. Member's thoughts, if I draw attention to the problem about the Long Title.
The Long Title gives an indication of what is in the Bill. The scope of the Bill is to be discovered by looking at its contents—its clauses and schedules. It is against the scope of the Bill that I have to judge whether amendments are in order. I must underline this point about scope, because "scope" is the operative word and it is the thread that we have been following for some considerable time.

Mr. Clarke: Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton. Surely, as no clause or schedule of the Bill deals with the powers of the Assembly, it cannot be within the scope of the Bill to restrict the powers of the Assembly now or in the future. I take guidance from the fact that the Chair has selected Amendment No. 1, which in no way seems to seek to affect the powers of the Assembly but to affect only the duration of the legislation if it is passed. It is extremely narrow and it was selected on that basis. There is no attempt in it to widen the scope of the Bill. The powers of the Assembly cannot be adjusted by the use of amendments to this piece of legislation.

Mr. Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. May I echo what has been expressed by other hon. Members in thanking you for your patience and guidance, particularly your helpful guidance on Amendments Nos. 10 to 13? I understood your initial ruling that those amendments were outside the scope of the Bill because the Bill deals with the manner in which representatives are to be elected rather than with their subsequent behaviour. However, following the discussions that we have had on that aspect, I wonder whether you could advise me whether you would accept a manuscript amendment to Clause 1, making it a requirement of nomination for candidates to declare any financial interest that they hold. Would that be a proper manuscript amendment to Clause 1 or would it be more appropriate as an amendment to Clause 9, having regard to the comments that you made earlier?

The Chairman: The hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Madden) is extremely persuasive, but I could not accept such an amendment to Clause 1. As for the hon. Gentleman's further suggestion, I shall be prepared to look at it when the time is right.

Mr. Body: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. With every respect, may I be allowed to revert to the amendments put down by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker)? I appreciate all that you have said about the scope of the Bill, and, of course, in the way that Clause 1 is phrased, it appears to limit representation to people of the United Kingdom. However, in giving your ruling in respect of Amendment No. 8, Mr. Murton, you reminded the House that we are the masters of our own procedure and that we are, above all, governed by the Long Title of the Bill. I suggest that there is nothing in the Long Title to limit representation to the United Kingdom.
I know that you have refreshed your memory several times about the Long Title, but it says that it merely makes "provision for and in connection with the election of representatives to the Assembly of the European Communities."
I suggest that the only grounds upon which amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Perry Barr could be ruled out would be by your exercising


your discretion under Standing Order No. 33. If you did that, Mr. Murton, nobody here would have the temerity to question your ruling, except, perhaps, to express a regret that you did not allow the hon. Member for Perry Barr to advance his reasons for urging that Gibraltar should have its representative in the Assembly of the European Communities.

The Chairman: The hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body) reverted to the matter of the Long Title. As I said, the Long Title is an indication of what is in the Bill, but it is the scope of the Bill that matters. In fact, the Bill specifically refers to the United Kingdom, full stop. There is no provision that I can possibly see or any way in which the Bill could be extended beyond the United Kingdom.

Mr. Mikardo: Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton. As you know I am not an expert on the procedure of the House by a long chalk and I am a rather simple fellow. But it seems that if one took literally to its sensible and logical conclusion what you have just said, it would never be possible to add anything to a Bill. If we are saying that what is in the Bill constitutes the scope of the Bill and anything that is not within the scope of the Bill is out of order, surely ipso facto any addition to the Bill must be out of order. Where am I wrong in that?

The Chairman: I am sure that the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo), who is in no way simple in the ways of the procedure of the House of Commons, knows full well that what I said, although perhaps rather clumsily, was that all amendments that are within the scope of the Bill are considered. However, I chose, under the terms of Standing Order No. 33, not to select these particular amendments, and I stand on the decision that I have made.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. May I seek your guidance in connection with the point that you have just made for the benefit of the Committee? The impression of all hon. Members will be that a long time has been spent on the questions put in legitimate points of order in connection with various amendments that

were not selected by you, using your discretion under Standing Order No. 33.
The Committee is also grateful for your detailed and substantial explanations, which appear entirely reasonable and logical. I hope that I am not embarrassing you by saying these things. On the basis of the selection that you have made and your reiteration of the scope of the Bill—the crucial part of the explanation—you appear to have been reasonable, and many hon. Members regard your decisions as perfectly acceptable.
Without wishing to provoke any hon. Members, my question is whether, after nearly two hours on various points, many of which have been related, even though dealing with different amendments, it is unreasonable for me to suggest that the time that has already elapsed for these matters and your considered response and careful judgment is sufficient. I suggest with some hesitation that the time spent on your responses to queries has been substantial and to the satisfaction of hon. Members. I am satisfied that your explanation of the scope of the Bill results in your selection of amendments flowing logically from that explanation. I may be wrong in drawing that conclusion. Other hon. Members may wish to pursue the matter, but the difficulty facing the Committee is that if they do so they are questioning the essential selection process.

The Chairman: I am fully sensible of the fact that the hands of the clock are moving round, but this is a matter for the Committee to decide. I am the servant of the Committee and will endeavour to do my best, within the rules of order, to be as helpful as I can and—I say this with some trepidation—for as long as the Committee desires.
Before calling the next hon. Member, I think I should remind the Committee that we have spent a fairly considerable time on the question of my selections. I am, of course, prepared to continue on this subject, but hon. Members should bear in mind the time left at our disposal.

Mr. Stoddart: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. I thank you for your patience. We all appreciate that the hands of the clock are going round, and we want to get on to the first interesting amendment. However, I should like to clarify your ruling in relation to Amendment No. 13.
I understood you to say that the amendment was not in order because it was a taxing measure and required a Ways and Means Resolution.
Am I to understand that, if the Government brought forward such an amendment on a Ways and Means Resolution, that would be in order? If so, could one of the Ministers, who, I know, want to be helpful in this matter, intervene now, bearing in mind the importance of the amendment and the importance that the country will attach to it, to indicate whether the Government will bring forward such an amendment at some stage?

6.30 p.m.

The Chairman: That is a hypothetical question. It is not for me to say what the Government might or might not do. One has always to bear in mind that it is conceivable that any such amendment could be outside the scope of the Bill, but that is not for the Chair to say when the matter remains entirely hypothetical.

Mr. Spearing: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. I am sure that the House is grateful for the way you have handled this complicated matter. I am sure that people will read Hansard carefully tomorrow. May I ask you to bear in mind what has happened should we tonight reach the stage of discussing whether Clause 1 should stand part of the Bill?
May I put to you some matters that you may not be able to answer at once but which remain outstanding? The first is the question of scope. Today is the first time that I have realised that the scope of a Bill is not inherent in the Long Title. You have surprised many of us by saying that the scope is what is in the Bill. Some hon. Members have, on occasions, had amendments ruled out of order as not being within the scope of the Long Title. That has not happened today, but you have ruled amendments out of order for not being within the scope of the Bill.
Hon. Members have been put in a novel and unusual position which I do not understand. If a Bill is drawn tightly in its wording, amendments are extremely limited whatever the length of the Long Title; and if the Long Title is extremely narrow and the Bill extremely wide, hon. Members are similarly inconvenienced.
Perhaps you may wish to reflect on this matter and give a further ruling later.
You have also ruled that Amendment No. 8 is not selected or is out of order. In my original point of order, I pointed out that the non-selection of this amendment would mean that the House of Commons could not discuss its continued function as a court in respect of disputed election results, and nothing that I have heard from you has contravened that claim. You have said that you will not select Amendment No. 8, and that it is out of order for the Committee to discuss the continued function of the House as an electoral court. I do not believe that this is so. As to Amendment No. 13—

The Chairman: Order. Before we go any further, I must point out that I did not say what the hon. Gentleman claims I said. It is a question of discussing the whole electoral procedure.

Mr. Spearing: My final point concerns Amendment No. 13, Mr. Murton. Can you rule on whether the taxation ruling that you gave is related to the Consolidated Fund? Would it apply if payments had to be made to the Fees Office?

The Chairman: Taxes are paid into the Consolidated Fund. Does that meet the hon. Gentleman's point?

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. I do not want to waste time. I am one of those who want the Bill on the statute book as quickly as possible, but I put a point to you earlier and I believe that you were contemplating it when another hon. Member caught your eye with another point. Is it the case that any question of seeking to adjust the powers of the Assembly or to constrain any changes in powers in future is outside the scope of the Bill?
You enlightened me, Mr. Murton, on the fact that the scope of the Bill was not entirely determined by the Long Title but was reflected in the content of the clauses as well. It seems that, as the Bill stands, there is not a single clause which in any way affects the powers of the Assembly. That is an important point and one which is likely to recur during the debate. I hope that you will rule on any question of our seeking to control how those powers might be changed in the future and what those powers are now. Is it not the case that


that may be an appropriate matter for the Committee to consider but that it is wholly outside the Bill? The Bill is concerned with the regulation of the elections which the House has agreed will take place.

The Chairman: As far as I can see, the answer is "Yes". I suggest that we move on to the first amendment.

Clause 1

ELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVES TO THE EUROPEAN ASSEMBLY

Mr. Jay: I beg to move an amendment which is, happily, in order and which you have selected, Mr. Murton—Amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 7, at beginning insert
During the period ending with the date on which any alteration in the powers of the Assembly of the European Communities (in this Act referred to as "the Assembly") takes effect by virtue of any treaty as defined in section 1 of the European Communities Act 1972'.

The Chairman: With this we may discuss Amendment No. 7, in page 1, line 8, leave out from 'Assembly' to 'shall' in line 9.

Mr. Jay: I wish to point out that I put my name to the amendment a few days ago but it has been removed because, I understand, only six names appear on the Notice Paper.

The Chairman: No discourtesy was intended. There was no printer's error or anything like that.

Mr. Jay: I recognise that. I merely wished to make it clear that my name was put to the amendment.
The meaning of the amendment is that the terms of this measure would cease to have effect at any time when there was an increase in the powers of the EEC Assembly, however that increase came about. What we are seeking to achieve is to carry out undertakings which, I understand, have been given by both Front Benches that they do not favour any increase in the powers of the Assembly. If there were to be an increase, additional legislation—not just an Order in Council—would be required to continue the validity of this measure. I hope I am right in saying that that is the view of the Government and the Con-

servative Front Bench. I am not sure whether that is the view of the Liberal Party. At the moment, Liberal Members are showing their great enthusiasm for the Bill by totally absenting themselves from the Chamber.
The view of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is quite clear. He wrote a letter on this point to the Secretary of the Labour Party on September 30th, stating:
It is our policy to continue to uphold the rights of national Governments and Parliaments. We do not envisage any significant Increase in the powers of the European Parliament. Should any such increase in powers be contemplated it would need the unanimous consent of the Nine Member States and of the Parliaments. The United Kingdom should make it clear that in our case any change in the powers of the Assembly would require an Act of Parliament and not simply be introduced by an affirmative order under the European Communities Act.
That is unusually plain and unambiguous compared with some political statements and political manifestos that some of us remember. It is perfectly clear that what we are doing here is to carry out and embody in the Bill the pronouncement that the Prime Minister made.
I see the Minister of State, Home Office on the Front Bench. He reaffirmed this objective of ensuring that any increase in the powers of the Assembly would be carried out by legislation as recently as the Second Reading debate on the Bill a week ago. I shall quote what my hon. Friend said to show him that all we are trying to do is assist him and support him by putting into the Bill the undertaking which he gave us on Second Reading.
My hon. Friend said:
The powers of the Assembly are laid down by the Treaty, and in order to alter the Treaty the unanimous consent of all nine countries is required. Before the powers of the European Assembly could be added to, the British Government would have to give their assent and, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear in his letter to the NEC of the Labour Party, it is intended that any extension of the powers of the European Assembly would be effected here by means of an Act of Parliament…I hope that the right hon. Gentleman who leads for the Opposition on this occasion will affirm his party's commitment to a similar procedure.
I thought that the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. White-law) so affirmed, but he can make that absolutely plain tonight.
The Minister of State made a further statement in his Second Reading speech. He was speaking about the proposal for the regional list system of election. I do not intend to discuss that now, but the Minister mentioned it as being relevant to this question of powers. He said:
The advantage that we see for the regional list system derives from the fact that the Assembly is a consultative and advisory body which has neither legislative nor executive powers. In our view, such a body would be better served by an electoral system reflecting the division of view within our country rather than one with a greater chance of a clear result, which is far more important for a legislative or executive body. "—[Official Report, 24th November 1977; Vol. 939, c. 1776, 1771.]
It is of interest for the Committee to note, for the purpose of later discussions, that the Minister of State justified the regional list system, which apparently the Government favour, clearly and explicitly on the grounds that the Assembly was to be purely advisory and consultative. The implication of that is that if the Assembly ceased to be purely advisory and consultative, and if it had increased powers, the whole case for that system of election would fall to the ground. I hope that the Committee will note that.
My hon. Friend will, I hope, accept the amendment, or at any rate the substance of it, because it appears to be entirely in tune with what he was saying. I hope he will not argue that, although he entirely agrees with our objectives and he reaffirms the undertakings that there will be no increase in powers without legislation, nevertheless, in spite of all that, he does not want to put this into the Bill. Speaking for myself, I have so often heard Ministers say that they intend to do something in the best of good faith but are not prepared to put it into the Bill that, while I do not say that my hon. Friend arouses my suspicions, I have some suspicions of that attitude on the part of a government.
Someone said the other day that the Prime Minister might be Moses but he is not Methuselah. He will not be the Prime Minister for ever. Neither is my hon. Friend Methuselah. These verbal undertakings, recorded in Hansard, or letters to the Labour Party written by Ministers, even the Prime Minister, are rarely a sufficient safeguard.
If the amendment, or the substance of it, is accepted, it will mean that, should

the Assembly increase its powers, it will be necessary to have a further Bill amending this measure so that representatives from the United Kingdom can go on serving in the Assembly. That would precisely carry out the undertaking that full, new legislation would be necessary. I do not think it is enough to be told that there can be no change in the powers of the Assembly without a unanimous decision by the Council of Ministers and approval by this House.
6.45 p.m.
Most hon. Members know what occurred last summer. There was an increase in the powers of the Assembly last summer over the budget. It was accepted by the Council of Ministers and it was formally, we are told, accepted by this House of Commons. All that happened was that there appeared on the Order Paper one day—probably a Friday, although I am not sure—the words "Definitions of Treaties Order, Number something or other", and this was approved at some late hour without very many hon. Members knowing what was happening. I am sure we all agree that it would be profoundly unsatisfactory if anything like that occurred again.
I hope, therefore, that we can achieve unanimous agreement in Committee that there must not be increases in the powers of the Assembly without full legislation and full discussion in the House. That is the only safeguard that matters. If the Government are sincere and genuine, as I am sure they are, they will agree to have this safeguard clearly and plainly written into the Bill.

Mr. Powell: My hon. Friends and I were pleased when we found that the amendment which we have tabled and which, by the good fortune of proposing the insertion of words at the beginning of the first line of the Bill, would be the first amendment—should you select it, Mr. Murton—to be considered by the Committee, had found favour more widely. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) for giving it the stamp of his approval, as well as his signature, by moving it.
This is an amendment which, if one follows the tenor of previous debates upon the subject, we had every reason to suppose conformed with the intentions and wishes of both sides of the House


of Commons, certainly with those of the Front and Back Benches on the Government side and quite certainly with the intentions of the official Opposition.
The area of agreement is considerable and is continually widening. We all knew that a further extension of the powers of the Assembly required action by Parliament because that was provided for in Section 1 of the 1972 Act. This assurance was carried further, as the right hon. Member for Battersea, North has reminded the Committee, by the Prime Minister, who made it clear—among other ways in his famous letter to the NEC—that although, technically, it would be possible for a resolution under Section 1 of the 1972 Act to do the job, this Government at any rate had no intention of any appreciable extension of the powers of the Assembly being brought about otherwise than by substantive legislation.
That certainly means that, although it might be a short Bill, it would have to go through all its stages in both Houses, and we would have as full an opportunity as our procedure gives us of examining the implications of that proposed extension of powers in the light of what we were doing in the Bill, in the light of the fact that this was an Assembly to which, under the Bill, we had consented to send directly-elected representatives.
The area of agreement was broadened further a week ago today on Second Reading. After the Minister of State, Home Office had repeatedly and most clearly re-enunciated the undertaking of the Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw)—and I think there were many in the House who were glad to hear it—not merely accepted that undertaking on behalf of the Opposition but also expressed the opinion that
it may have to be written into the Bill to make sure that it is so."—[Official Report, 24th November 1977; Vol. 939, c. 1781.]
I think that I am probably interpreting the right hon. Gentleman's intentions in the use of those words correctly when I say that he was not casting doubt on the good faith in this respect of the Government, or, still less, upon the good faith of his own colleagues, but was saying that, in a matter as important as this

and so directly relevant to the decision to participate in a directly-elected Assembly which we are taking in the Bill, the promise ought to be entrenched legislatively—entrenched on the statute book. Indeed, the whole of what the right hon. Gentleman said at Column 1781 is well worth reading.
So I believe that on the proposition that, if we are to pass the Bill, it should be distinctly upon the basis of the existing powers of the Assembly and also upon the basis that those powers cannot be appreciably increased without further legislative action by the House of Commons, we are again on what is basically agreed ground.
In July 1976 the Prime Minister used the expression, in relation to a directly-elected Assembly, that it
will be elected on the powers which it has already."—[Official Report, 14th July 1976; Vol. 915, c. 661.]
Those words were re-echoed a year later by the Home Secretary, who said:
I should emphasise that these direct elections are being conducted on the basis of the present limited powers of the European Assembly."—[Official Report, 6th July 1977; Vol. 934, c. 1251.]
Of course, there is a logical sense in which that is bound to be true. It could be treated as a truism to say that, if we set up a directly elected Assembly now, we set it up on the basis of the powers as they are now, But that would be an empty truism, and I am certain that it was not as an empty truism that it was pronounced by the Prime Minister or by the Home Secretary. The Prime Minister was not just putting us off by logical fiddling so that we would think we were getting an assurance when, if we read the small print, we should find no assurance at all. Both he and the Home Secretary were saying, in effect, "We would not be asking the House to consent—certainly not as things are at the moment—to direct elections except on the assumption of the current powers of that Assembly, which we are proposing to assist in turning into a directly elected Assembly".
So the thought that the one is conditional upon the other has been implicit in this matter, not just in the last week or few months but from the first time that the Government came forward with any positive proposals to the House


for direct elections. In fact, it is in line with the thinking of the Prime Minister and the Government as expressed in the letter to the NEC of the Labour Party. Over and over again in that statement of the policy of the Government, the Prime Minister stressed that he regarded the Assembly as an Assembly in which nations were represented and that he would not be a party to anything which would diminish the powers of national Parliaments and national Governments.
No one should be under the impression that the Prime Minister was using those expressions lightheartedly or that he was using them in order to steer between the Scylla and Charybdis of a difficult legislative path. They undoubtedly came from his heart, for one cannot read—and they are good reading —the speeches which at an earlier stage he used to make without knowing that he understands perfectly well that, once we have a directly elected Assembly, unless the powers of that Assembly are rigorously limited so that they cannot conflict with the rights and powers of national Parliaments and national Governments, there is no question but that the House of Commons will have lost effective control.
I am not going to trouble the Committee by quotations—although they are very good—from some of the Prime Minister's speeches, particularly at Cardiff, in which he vividly illustrated what would be the position of Members of the House and of our constituents if a directly elected Assembly were mandated to give assent to executive or legislative acts of the EEC: we should have effectively lost control over the policies and legislation of our own country.
Therefore, it is entirely in line with the thinking of the Government, and with the careful, solemn and repeated expressions which have been used during the last 18 months by members of the Government, that we should see this legislative step as conditional upon the present limitation of the powers of the Assembly. The right hon. Member for Battersea, North quoted the Minister of State, Home Office, who, in moving the Second Reading, rested the case for the Bill upon the fact that it was only "a consultative and advisory body"—words which will still be true, Mr. Murton, whether or not we are permitted by your decision actually to write them into the clause.
But the Minister of State went further still and made a remarkable statement which, I think, expresses how closely in the Government's mind the case, and, indeed, the justification, for the Bill, if it has one, is conditional upon the limitation of the powers of the Assembly to substantially what they are at present. He said:
I am advancing the argument that this Bill stands or falls on its merits as a measure to elect people directly to the Assembly, with the powers of that Assembly as they are today."—[Official Report, 24th November 1977; Vol. 939, c. 1768.]
In other words, the Bill stands or falls on the proposition that the Assembly to which representatives are to be directly elected is an Assembly with the powers as they are today. What need have we of witnesses, since the Minister himself said that the case for the Bill would fall if the powers of the Assembly were appreciably increased?
7.0 p.m.
The effect of this amendment is precisely to turn into legislative form the words of the Minister of State, Home Office; for the amendment secures—I hope that it secures, but at least it intends to do so, and I know that the Government will not quibble about that—that if those powers are extended the House—and, therefore, the country—will have the opportunity to consider de novo the case for direct elections and to validate a directly elected Assembly again, if it thinks fit, in those new circumstances, because the case for what we are doing now with this Bill will by them have fallen.
Therefore, I not only hope that the intention of the amendment will be accepted by the Government, who are in fact committed to it by their own words and by the general spirit of their policy, but I look to it being supported by the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border and his colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench. The right hon. Gentleman was not, I believe, present in the Chamber a few minutes ago when his hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) pointed out that this was perhaps the only way in which we could get into the Bill, given the scope of the Bill, that legislative enactment of the pledge which the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border wanted. So


I think that we should count upon having for this amendment not the support of a minority but the support of the greater part of both sides of the House and the official support of both Front Benches.
There is only one thing that I want to add. There are a number of hon. Members—mainly, though not exclusively, sitting on the Opposition side—who take an entirely different view from that of the Prime Minister, the Government and most of us about what they intend and wish for the future of the European Economic Community and our place in it. From the beginning of this controversy I have always said publicly inside and outside the House, that I cast no imputations upon the honour of any hon. Member who conscientiously believes it right to advocate that this nation should become a province of a new structure which is to grow out of the EEC. I know, indeed, that that is the view—and I have honoured him for expressing it clearly—of the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath). I have said that repeatedly.
In the debate on Second Reading last Thursday, we heard hon. Members on both sides of the House of Commons, but certainly on the Opposition side, say "Yes, I do desire a federal outcome. That is what I want, and that is what I think it is all about." It is entirely right that those hon. Members should have said that, and they are entirely entitled—as entitled as any hon. Member—to put their point of view. What is clear is that it is a view which does not command the general support of Her Majesty's Opposition, which is in conflict with the rejection by the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border of what we call loosely "federalism", knowing perfectly well what we are talking about. It is, of course, also in conflict with the view of the future of the EEC which the Prime Minister has enunciated on behalf of the Government, and it is in conflict with the view of the majority, undoubtedly and visibly, of hon. Members who sit on the Government side of the House of Commons.
What I am saying—and in a way this amendment is the first of many opportunities for us to do what I believe is our duty—is that we have to stop pretending that there is no fundamental cleavage

of intention here as to what the European Economic Community is going to be for this country. We have to come clean. If we do, we shall find, I believe, that on both sides of the House of Commons there is a large, perhaps overwhelming, majority who desire the rights of our Government and of this Parliament to be preserved and entrenched against the federal development of the European Economic Community. The case for or against can be debated, of course—it is the essence of the debate—but the division has to be recognised.
In this, the first amendment which we consider upon this Bill, we are making clear that, at any rate if there is to be any alteration of purpose, if there is to be any alteration of function, of the European Assembly, we wish whatever authority we are giving in the Bill to be recalled so that on behalf of the people of this country we can take our decision afresh and without prejudice; for I believe that that is the intention not only of a majority of this House of Commons—and a large majority—but of a vast majority of the people whom we represent.
I hope that the Committee will agree either to the amendment as it stands or to some undertaking from the Government that they will embody the intention and purpose of it in amendments which they themselves will bring forward.

Sir Derek Walker-Smith: I am grateful for the opportunity of making a short contribution to this important debate. There are some aspects of the amendment which I find difficult, for reasons which I shall give, but the difficulty which I entertain does not in any way derive from the object of the amendment as it has been defined and as I understand it to be. I apprehend that the object of this amendment is to retain a parliamentary control at Westminster of any extension, or attempted extension, of the powers of the European Parliament. If and in so far as that is the object, it is a laudable object and one which I support.
If the attainment of that object were to depend upon the enactment of this provision and could be obtained solely by the carrying of this amendment, I would certainly be very sympathetically inclined to it, in spite of the practical difficulties to which it would give rise,


but, in my view, that is not really the case. The control by this Parliament of any extension of the powers of the European Parliament or Assembly does not depend upon or, indeed, strictly require, the introduction of any such provision as this and the practical difficulties which it entails.
There would, of course, be practical difficulties. It would mean that suddenly, on a date impossible to prognosticate, to anticipate or to regulate, the British representation at the Assembly would come abruptly to a halt. Not only would the tenure of the directly elected British representatives be at an end but there would be no statutory provision for their replacement or for any other British representation. There is no amendment tabled to the Bill, so far as I can see, to seek to provide for such representation in those circumstances.

Mr. Powell: The right hon. and learned Member has been very fair in recognising the object of this amendment. Perhaps I may put it to him that it by no means follows from the amendment that there would be an abrupt termination of our representation in the European Assembly, because, of course, we would not take the legislative steps which would be necessary as part of the unanimous agreement of the Community States unless we were also ready to continue, by a renewal of the mandate given by the Bill, the existence of the directly elected Assembly. So whatever may be the other difficulties, I do not think that it is a practical point that we would suddenly be faced with our representatives in the Assembly disappearing, as it were, through a trap door. It would be known months, perhaps years, beforehand what the date would be, because it would be by an Act of Parliament that the powers of the Assembly would have been increased.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for what he said at the outset and for the explanation which he sought to give. The fact remains, however, that the amendment, if carried, would have a certain effect. We see from the correlation of the words of the amendment to the Bill that
During the period ending with the date on which any alteration in the powers of the Assembly…takes effect "—

Mr. Powell: "Takes effect".

Sir D. Walker-Smith: "Takes effect", yes. The date on which it takes effect is not a date within the control of this Parliament, or certainly not exclusively of this Parliament. It is a date dependent upon the ratification, according to their own constitutional procedures, of at least eight other member States, or more if the Community is enlarged. It is a date dependent upon the completion of the ratification procedures by the last of those member States. So it is not a date which is in the control of this Parliament. Hence my use of the word "regulate". It is not a date within the power of this Parliament to foresee in advance. Hence my use of the term "anticipate or prognosticate". It may not be a difficulty which it is impossible to get over, but it is a practical difficulty which has to be weighed in the balance if one is looking at comparative methods of achieving what I have stated to be a desirable object.
That is why I want to come to the question of what is the position of this Parliament as a matter of constitutional law—and, indeed, international law—in regard to any effort to extend the powers of the European Parliament or Assembly.
The extension of the powers of that Assembly is not a matter within the jurisdiction or control of the Assembly itself, nor even a matter for its own initiative. Of course, it would be otherwise—if I may respectfully say so, this is why some right hon. and hon. Gentlemen perhaps do not always see this matter in its full constitutional clarity—if the Community were based on the British concept of the omnicompetence of Parliament, of the sovereignty of Parliament. If that were so, of course a directly elected Parliament would be able ipso facto to extend its powers, and in those circumstances it would be under some temptation to do so.
However, that is not the position. The Community is an institutionalised structure based on the separation between the four institutions of the Community—the Council of Ministers, the Commission, the Assembly and the European Court of Justice—of powers and functions defined and allotted in a written constitution, a concept not very familiar to most of us here but, of course, very familiar to the majority of the other member States.
The powers and functions of the Assembly are defined, as the Committee


well knows, in Article 137 of the Treaty which states:
The Assembly, which shall consist of representatives of the people of the States brought together in the Community, shall exercise the advisory and supervisory powers"—
and then there follow these words—
which are conferred upon it by this Treaty.
I emphasise those final words because that is the definition and delimitation of the powers of the Assembly.
Though the European Parliament can and does properly, and, I believe, does usefully, within these powers, influence and seek to improve legislation, it is not a legislative body such as is this Parliament, for example. It is not a legislative body, and it cannot become a legislative body within the framework of its powers as they are defined in the Treaty.
7.15 p.m.
Not only is the European Parliament not the controller of its own powers. It is not even the arbiter of its powers. It is the European Court of Justice which, under Article 164 of the Treaty,
shall ensure that in the interpretation and application of this Treaty the law is observed.
So, the powers of the Assembly being defined and limited by the express provisions of the Treaty and the interpretation and enforcement of those powers and functions being a matter not for itself but for the European Court of Justice, what is the position in respect of enlarging the powers of a directly elected Parliament? It can be done only by an amendment of the Treaty, the procedure for which is prescribed in Article 236, the terms of which, I am sure, are well known to the Committee but which repay every moment of detailed study which can be given to them.
From Article 236 two propositions are abundantly clear. First, a directly elected Parliament would not of itself have any right to initiate the proposal for the necessary amendment for the extension of its powers. This initiative is expressly confined by the terms of the Treaty to
The Government of any Member State or the Commission.
They submit any proposals to the Council of Ministers. So there is no power of amendment in a directly elected Parlia-

ment, no right of initiative of any amendment.
The second proposition that clearly emerges is this. Any amendment to increase the powers of the directly elected European Parliament could enter into force only
after being ratified by all the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.
That last position—the requirement of ratification in accordance with the constitutional requirements of the member States—would, in the case of most of the member States, immediately involve the control of any increase or attempted increase in the powers of the European Parliament by the national parliament since the written constitutions of those member States ordinarily and properly make such ratification expressly a matter for the national parliament.
Here in the United Kingdom, by way of contrast, the matter is complicated by our historic concept of treaty making as a matter of Crown prerogative, from which it might appear that Parliament has no, or no sufficient and proper, control, apart from the opportunity for discussion under the so-called Ponsonby rule. Fortunately, as the Committee may think and certainly as the proponents of the amendment will think, this does not represent the reality of the position. In the United Kingdom, unlike in some other countries, such as the United States, treaties are not what lawyers call self-executing. That is, they do not automatically become the law of the country which signs the treaty.
In the words of the leading textbook on the subject, Lord McNair's "Law of Treaties",
No treaty requiring municipal action
in case there is any isolated right hon. or hon. Member who is not aware of it, let me state that "municipal" is the language of international lawyers for "national" and has nothing to do with dustmen, sewerage or any of those things—
to give effect to it can receive that effect without the co-operation of Parliament, either in the form of a Statute or in some other way.
As with the Treaty of Accession, any amendment to the EEC Treaty would require national action within the terms


of Lord McNair's definition, since the British courts will not apply directly the provisions of a treaty in this country in derogation of private rights. They will apply only such provisions as are incorporated and given effect to in our own national statute law. An amendment of the EEC treaty to give increased powers to a directly elected European Parliament would, therefore, come within the first of the three classes of treaty defined by Lord McNair at page 83 of his classic work where, in his words,
sanction is required for their municipal"—
national—
execution and application and must be given in the form of a statute
Lord McNair uses the words
in the form of a statute
It must be considered whether, under contemporary parliamentary practice, and particularly the European Communities Act 1972, it would be possible to minimise parliamentary control, to get away from the full effects of parliamentary control, by substituting approval by Order in Council under Section 1 and thereby not giving a proper opportunity for full parliamentary consideration and statutory decision. In my view, Section 1(3) of the 1972 Act could not properly be read as the procedure required in Lord McNair' definition for an amendment under Article 236 of the Treaty designed to extend the powers of the European Parliament. I would not say—

Mr. Marten: rose—

Sir D. Walker-Smith: I was about to say—and this may reinforce my hon. Friend's desire to put the point—that such a proposition is not unarguable, because my pretty long forensic experience leads me to believe that very few propositions are unarguable, but it is not a proposition which I would expect to succeed when one considers what Section 1(3) deals with. My hon. Friend will know from his legal experience, the canon of construction that one should look at the subject matter in interpreting the words of any legal instrument.

Mr. Marten: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his compliment to my legal training, most of which went out of the window many years ago. I

have been following his argument with great interest. What worries me is the fact that things can be twisted in the Community. May I give him an example and ask him to comment on it? The decision of 20th September 1976 was that the elections should be held on a single date and that all countries should hold them on that date. I have here what is called the European Parliament Report, published by the Community, which states:
The date of the elections was of such political and psychological importance to the Community, Mr. Simonet argued"—
and he is, after all, President of the Council of Ministers—
that if one or more countries held back then he others should go ahead.
In other words, despite the decision to hold the elections on one day, the President of the Council of Ministers argues exactly the opposite. The quotation continues:
This view caused some controversy. Lawyers Sir Derek Walker-Smith (Con/UK) and Mario Scelba (CD/It) were sceptical. John Prescott (Soc/UK) called it an astounding doctrine. He has…implied that the Treaty obligation now can be considered changed on political grounds, rather than remain a legal obligation'.
It is this weaving, twisting and turning by people in the Community which makes the amendment of the Bill necessary.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: Was it not lucky that I was present when Mr. Simonet made that proposition, so that I could point out to him that under the Treaty these are matters of interpretation for the European Court of Justice? I said that if there was doubt on the proposition it would not be resolved by pronouncements made either by him as President of the Council or even by a humble Back Bencher like myself. It was a matter for the court.
In my view, therefore, the position is reasonably clear without any further enactment. The position is this, and I put it as a proposition of law deriving from a written constitution. There can be no extension of powers of a directly-elected Parliament without amendment of the Treaty and there can be no such amendment without ratification involving parliamentary approval; that is, approval by the national Parliaments of every one of the nine member States.

Mr. Spearing: rose—

Sir D. Walker-Smith: I suppose that we are not in any time difficulties, so I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for making the position clear, but he is back where he started. Our procedure is completely subterranean, and therefore what he puts forward as a strong safeguard is in fact very little safeguard at all.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. In addition to all his other talents and qualities, he must be a mind reader, because the next sentence in my notes reads: "But the position of the United Kingdom is less clear than that of member States with a written constitution". It is less clear precisely for the reason I gave a few minutes ago. It follows, therefore, that it may be desirable for us in this country and this Parliament to enact an appropriate statutory provision to safeguard the position and for what statutes call the avoidance of doubt.
However, that can be done without a provision involving the practical difficulties which I apprehend may follow from my right hon. Friend's amendment. Lord McNair points the way. In addition to the three cases which he has defined, and one of which, in my view, clearly applies in the context of the present circumstances where parliamentary sanction of a treaty is required ratione materiae, by reason of the inherent character of the treaty, Lord McNair says that
there are some cases in which the Crown expressly stipulates for parliamentary sanction as a condition of the coming into force of the treaty".
He gives precedent for that.
Such statutory provision can be made either by a simple amendment to this Bill—not the amendment we are discussing, because I think that a simpler amendment could be devised which would give direct effect to Lord McNair's proposition—assuming it to be within the Long Title, or, perhaps better, in a short, simple and separate Bill. That would be feasible, both constitutionally and practically. Such a Bill would be easy to draft and, if I do not mistake the general sentiment of the Committee, it would be assured a speedy and unopposed passage.
In my view, if any action at all is required to safeguard the desirable object of maintaining our parliamentary control of any extension of the powers of die European Parliament, and if there is any reasonable or appreciable doubt, there should be appropriate action for the dissolution or dispersal of doubt. If there be any doubt, action should be taken to remove it, and it could be sought along the lines that I have adumbrated. I respectfully suggest—because those of us who table amendments have no obstinate pride of draftsmanship—the alternative methods which I have suggested would achieve this desirable object perhaps better, if I may modestly say so, than the passage of the amendment in its present terms.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. John Ellis: I do not wish to be offensive to the right hon. and learned Member, because he is an eminent lawyer, but he was left in some bother with interventions. He was saying that we had no need to fear from this amendment. He said that we do not need the amendment and that the EEC was a different matter altogether. He said that the politicians were not involved, but that this was a matter for the courts. He said that he had been there when he stopped them doing this dastardly thing. That is the trouble; we fear that he may not be there.
Because I am a politician, I came to the House with the votes of the people behind me. We make the law and we are answerable for it. Whatever one says about the EEC, it has politicians who operate policy. Some of the politicians have their political dreams and ideologies and wish to see them put into effect.
I suppose that the system that we have in this country might not suit everyone, but it has stood us over many years. It is a system of which I am proud. I think we are all proud of it, especially when we see how it works. Perhaps other countries with less stable systems need constitutions or something that is above themselves. That is something about which we know nothing. Our system is understood by our people when they return us here. We come here and wield power on the basis of their faith and vote in returning us, and we accept that they can refuse us.
We take a momentous step when we say that we shall hold elections to send other representatives of ourselves to Europe. The two Front Benches have been sensitive to what has been happening. I am sure that if we were to have a vote on the Common Market tomorrow there would be a different result.
The two Front Benches are now saying that of course the European Parliament is consultative and advisory. They say that they will not let it be anything else. They say that Parliament is supreme, that we shall take the decisions and that our destiny will be here.
We have already seen powers go. We have seen a Minister on behalf of the House make certain dispensations about the agriculture and pig industries. We have already seen him taken to court and told "This is not on. It is illegal and you must set it aside." Some people would argue that some of the power that we had has already gone. We do not wish to see that position further eroded.
I noticed a peculiar thing when we were debating the principle of the matter. The spokesman on the Government Front Bench gave the pledge that the Assembly would have no more power and that this Parliament would be sovereign and supreme. I can speak only about those hon. Members on the Government side who are in favour of the Common Market. They muttered harshly at that.
It is honourable to say that our future lies in Europe and that we must join. It is honourable to say that if the Italians have something to give they will bring it to the Community and that we shall bring something else, so that we can work as an entity. Such people have the courage and faith to say that we shall have one Parliament and shall be Europeans, rather than a collection of individuals. They believe that the Assembly is only the start. There are hon. Members, whom I salute, who may say just that. All honour to them. That is their dream and conviction, and that is why many of us who take the contrary view are so wary of proceeding further along these lines.
In many ways I wonder what we are at, if this body is to be advisory and is to have only these limited powers. The House sets up many bodies to which it gives instructions. It gives them advisory

and supervisory powers. Why do we go to the extent of sending these gentlemen to Europe on an elected basis, as proposed by the Bill and this amendment? Why do we bother?

Mr. Dykes: Is that not the crucial difference? Any power that the European Parliament might have—and it has not got any at the moment—would flow only from the supreme decision of the Council of Ministers, whose own power flows from the national Parliaments.

Mr. Ellis: That is what I am saying. The hon. Member says that as a true European. Perhaps he hopes that the Council of Ministers will be as answerable to the Assembly as our Ministers are to this House. That is a logical follow-through of the argument. If people vote to choose their political representatives in this House, representatives who will create and control policies on their behalf, they will believe that they are sending representatives to do the same in Europe. Yet we are told that that is not to be the case. What, then, is the point of going, if the Members who go will have no influence over events?
It will be all so easy at first. The Assembly will say that it wants only a debating forum, or that it wants Ministers to come before it and explain matters. I regard politics as an honourable profession. We believe in certain principles and we are sent to Parliament to exercise our responsibilites here.
Which self-respecting politician who has any guts will go to Europe and be satisfied merely with being listened to? He will be accosted, as we all are, by some of his more vociferous constituents. They will demand to know why he took a certain action and what right he had to do so. When I am challenged in that way, I reply that I stood on a public platform and declared what I believed in and told the people: "Choose me if you will". I suppose that we have all been opinionated at times. That is why I went into politics. I disagreed with something that was done in our village and I was told "If you want to do it differently, you must stand for election." That was a long time ago, when I was a young man, and I decided to stand and have a go. I ended up in the House of Commons.
The representatives in Europe will say that they were sent by their electorates, and at first their demands will be modest. They will seek only to advise. But when their advice is not taken the demands will grow and they will protest that they came with people's views, and how dare those in authority not listen to them? There are hon. Members on both sides of the House who believe that that is the proper approach, and that it is an evolution that will come. The Front Benches sincerely meant what they said, but if they believe that Parliament will be supreme, that the supervisory and advisory nature of the Assembly is to remain, there can be no objection to that fact being written into the Bill in that precise form.
What we are deciding here will determine what happens tomorrow or next year. The representatives who go to the Assembly will be answerable as we are. Our duty is to see the position clearly. We must put in all the checks and balances that we think appropriate. If we have the support of the two Front Benches in this amendment in saying that the representatives who go to Europe must not extend their power, only the federalists—those who wish to set up an independent Parliament and to pursue their dream—will vote against the amendment. We who believe that this country has a destiny of a different order, and who believe that that would be a wrong step, are mirroring the fears of a growing number of people outside the House.
This amendment would require an act of this House before further powers could be assumed, and on that basis I do not believe that the supporters of the two main parties here tonight can do other than vote for the amendment. I hope that we shall have a vote. We who support the amendment will win if both the Front Benches, who have made their positions clear, do not cavil but follow the logic of their speeches on Second Reading.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Nick Budgen: It is right that the first amendment should deal with the whole relationship of the House of Commons with the proposed European Assembly,

or the European Parliament as it can become. The hon. Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Ellis) rightly said that this amendment is at least a first step in defining the relationship between this Parliament and the European Assembly. The conciliatory way in which the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) spoke in supporting the amendment might perhaps have given the impression that he thought that it was almost sufficient to contain the insatiable desire for power and influence by the European Assembly and those who sit in it. I say only that the amendment is the necessary beginning.
I believe that we have to fear not only the law-making powers of the Assembly but its influence. For in recommending to the House the expressions often enunciated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw), as expressed at column 1781 of the Second Reading debate, the right hon. Member for Down, South perhaps gave the impression that he agreed with my right hon. Friend in the view that mere legalisating powers were the beginning and the end of the influence that the European Assembly might have upon this House of Commons.
The true position is perhaps more clearly stated by the right hon. Member for Down, South in his speech at column 1790, where he expressed with his usual vigour and force his belief that the real fear of the increasing influence of the European Assembly will come from its budgetary powers. After I read that passage, I recollected some of the speeches that had been made by my right hon. and hon. Friends in recent debates in the European Assembly upon the budget there. Before looking at those reports, I had in mind the classic conflict which is still being fought out within the Conservative Party.
Of course, the Conservative Party has never been a party wholly of those who agree with Whig free-trade principles, nor of those who wholly agree with the views of the Tory paternalists. But it would be fair to say that at present there is a slight balance in favour of the former. Therefore, I would have expected to see a tendency among those who attended the European Assembly as Tory Party representatives—because that is


what they are at present—to prefer market forces to State intervention; a tendency to be sceptical about the efficacy of regional policies; a tendancy, perhaps, to be rather sceptical about some of the social policies to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) referred, putting it so well, when she talked about the need to have wealth-creating jobs and not wealth-consuming jobs.
I should have thought that most of the Tory Party was now at least aware of the argument for reducing public expenditure, and at least aware of the need to reduce public expenditure with a view to becoming once again the party of sound money.
With views of that sort in mind, I thought that it would be of interest to see the kinds of views which were expressed by my colleagues when they were speaking about the budget in the European Assembly. I first refer to a report of the proceedings of that Parliament, as The Times calls it, on 13th September 1977. My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Mr. Shaw) said that
the immediate reaction of MPs to the draft budget was unfavourable. The Council of Ministers had produced a draft budget which in no way could be regarded as comprehensive policy document. It was a patched-up job which did not measure up to the hopes and needs of the Community.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) said that
the Council of Ministers had used the surgeon's knife to produce virtual sterility in the regional fund. Where money could be more effectively spent by the Community than by Member states it was not additional expenditure but more effective deployment of funds.
That is an interesting distinction. My hon. Friend added that
to cut the Commission's proposals for the regional fund was madness.
Although I said that I would refer only to those members of the European Assembly who are Conservatives, I hope that if I refer to Mr. Roy Jenkins I shall be considered to be referring at least to an honorary Conservative.

Mr. Mikardo: That is fair enough.

Mr. Budgen: Mr. Roy Jenkins, President of the Commission, said that
the cuts made by the Council were not in his view responsible. They paid little or no regard to any sense of strategy or priorities, to

the future development of Europe or to making the budget not just an accountancy exercise but an expression of policy.
The report quotes Mr. Roy Jenkins as having said later:
With the advent of direct elections this might he, and he hoped it would be, the last budget that this Parliament as constituted would handle. He hoped by its handling it would signal to its directly elected successor the importance of parliamentary influence over budgetary decisions and the crucial political choices which they posed.
Then, on 25th October, my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster made a most passionate speech in support of more money for the alleviation of youth unemployment. But perhaps the most important speech on that day was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins), who said that
the CAP was often criticised because it represented too large a proportion of the overall budget. This was because everything else was too small. This was due in part to the reluctance of the Council to increase other sectors. The Council was too timorous, and to a certain extent the Commission was at fault for failing to put forward sufficient draft regulations expanding the scope of other sections of the budget. If they were developed the agricultural policy would be seen in its correct perspective.
I assert, therefore, that the real danger to the sovereignty of this Parliament comes from the extension of the Community budget. These proposals, which will perhaps to a limited extent regulate the law-making capacity of the Assembly, are a small step in the right direction. But the real risk is that by the extension of the budget the community will progress towards a federal and supervisory rôle which threatens most of all the sovereignty of this Parliament.

Mr. David Crouch: I confess that I sometimes fear for the future of democracy in this country when I hear how frightened some of my colleagues and Government members are of the very process and the spirit of democracy.
We listened to the hon. Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Ellis) make a very powerful speech. It was a speech from the puritanical seventeenth century. "By God", he said, "we must stick to the straight and narrow. We must not deviate for one moment from this House. It is all we know. We dare not even look outside the Chamber for fear of seeing something that we did not create here


in this great puritanical centre of democracy."
What he was saying, in other words, was "We dare not export democracy. We must keep democracy here." All sovereignty, it would seem, is the sole prerogative of the House of Commons. The hon. Member spoke glowingly of his position as a Member of Parliament in this country and of how much he liked it. We all do. We treasure the association that we have with our constituents. I agree with him about that. We can speak up for them in this House, as the hon. Gentleman says, and, of course we treasure that. But what is so wrong with another type of MP, a member of an Assembly in Europe, properly elected and democratically representing British people in a European Assembly?
Of course, if we are against the whole idea of partaking in Europe, we must be completely against the Bill. If we want to dissociate ourselves from a community of nations, the European Economic Community—if we want to break away from that, I respect the honesty of any Member who sticks to his guns and says "I shall fight to the last to get away from this Treaty and our commitment under it."

Mr. John Ellis: My point is that we are being led by the Government Front Bench to believe that we are not setting up another European parliamentary system such as our own. If that were the argument, we could understand it. What concerns me is the dishonesty of the position that some people are getting themselves into. The pure federalist—which I take it the hon. Gentleman is—wants to take us into European democracy and convert everyone else to it. All right, but that is not what is said here, and that is what we fear is being done.

Mr. Crouch: I shall come in a moment to the question whether we are federalist. It is certainly my long-term aim to see a federal Europe, but there is a time for everything, and I have always said so. What the Treaty established was a community of nations. It created a legislative centre—a management centre, one might call it—in Brussels. But that was not all. The Community was not intended just for Ministers, just for bureaucrats and officials, or just as a place where international business men could work

together with a group of Ministers from six nations. It was much more than that. It was created as a Community of people.
When the Treaty of Rome was written and first signed by the Six, 20 years ago, it took account of the place of people in Parliament, but not just in the Parliaments of their own national countries. The idea was that the people of the member States should themselves have a say and be involved in what was to happen in the Europe of the future. It was not another North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. It was not another International Monetary Fund. It was not even a United Nations, meeting twice a year in General Assembly for a talk. It was much more than a management centre and meeting of Ministers. In the first place, it was the full involvement of politicians. It has taken 20 years for it to grow from that and to involve the people—starting next year, I pray—in an extension of democracy in Europe.
8.0 p.m.
The EEC is nothing if it does not grow as a democratic group of nations. If it grows as a group of nations, as a vast European corporate State, it will not be my ideal. I want the Assembly to have a chance to grow so that the people in the member States can feel that their voices will be heard in the place where important decisions are made.
I know that some Members passionately believe that we must not allow a shred of power to flow from this Parliament. There are those who feel that the power must come back to this Parliament and to the other eight Parliaments if people in those countries have a similar feeling. I appreciate that feeling, but I earnestly believe that we shall succeed in this group of nations and make real history only if we accept that it can be done only with the help of the people, and not with politicians alone. People must participate, and the European Assembly must begin to grow. For 20 years it has not been the type of Assembly that we all admire and want to take part in.

Mr. Dykes: Indeed, and in a world where the essential problem facing all parliamentarians of good will, as the hon. Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Ellis) suggested, is the effective control over both the individual Executives of the


national Parliaments and the collective Executive represented by the Council of Ministers, with all the complicated decision-making that will face the Community in the future, is not the task to build the supplementary collective democracy of the European Assembly over and above the individual national democracies in the individual member Parliaments?

Mr. Crouch: I agree. That is what I meant when I spoke of the institution of the Assembly being written into the Treaty of Rome. That was where the creators of the idea of a European Economic Community had their vision. They did not leave democracy out. It would have been easy to produce a treaty that gave us another NATO in economic and social terms. It would have been easy to create a European United Nations. Instead, the great architects of 20 years ago conceived the idea of a rebirth of democracy in Europe. I submit that that must now be given a chance to develop.
There is no Member here whom I would not describe as a good democrat. But there are those of us who are frightened to go out into the open air of Europe in case, by so doing, some of the cold winds might hurt us. I respect the views of those who are against me in this respect. It may be that I would go too far and too fast. Therefore, I respect those who would seek to restrain me. But we are speaking essentially to an amendment to a clause which is the kernel of the Bill. It is the clause that seeks to establish a system of sending representatives elected by the people of this country to represent us in the European Assembly.
I was very concerned about the clever speech made by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). He is always listened to with great attention, because he does not speak idly or unbriefed. Indeed, he speaks with great persuasiveness and makes us wonder whether he is right. However, this afternoon—although I believe that he is certain that he is right to warn us of the dangers—I feel that he was misleading the Committee. I see the Minister of State, Home Office in his place. The right hon. Member for Down, South quoted from the Minister's speech on Second Reading, at c. 1768. The right hon. Gentleman reminded us that the Minister of State said:

I am advancing the argument that this Bill stands or falls on its merits as a measure to elect people directly to the Assembly
—and he continued with the important proviso—
with the powers of that Assembly as they are today.
The right hon. Member for Down, South made use of that quotation as support for his argument that the amendment must be written into the clause if we are to interpret correctly what the Minister of State said. But he did not go on to quote what the Minister said immediately afterwards:
It is no part of my thesis that we are considering it as a step towards federalism."—[Official Report, 24th November 1977; Vol. 939, c. 1768.]
That was the reminder from the Government that this Bill was not advancing very far ahead. It was a Bill not about federalism but about the Assembly as we know it today. However, the right hon. Member for Down, South latched on to that and claimed that there must be no change whatever in this European set-up.
The right hon. Gentleman is seeking to constrict the Bill, and to constrain Parliament in such a way as to wreck the Bill. I have great respect for the right hon. Gentleman—I wish that he were in his place now—but I shall not be misled by his intention. I suggest that his intention is to wreck the Bill, as surely as he wrecked the Parliament (No. 2) Bill 10 years ago.

Mr. James Molyneaux: Perhaps I, at a much humbler level, may explain what is in the minds of the Ulster Unionists. With respect to my colleagues who represent other parts of the United Kingdom, I must point out that they have not had the experience that we have had of trying to run a Parliament and Government subordinate to another body. That is why it is a fallacy and nonsense to pretend that somehow or other we can divide democracy, have a certain element of it transferred to a superior body, and yet retain intact the powers of this Parliament of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Crouch: That intervention would be more appropriate to the devolution debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) knows well enough that, although he has lived through and experienced the establishment and running of Stormont in


Northern Ireland, it was not thought by many to have been a total failure. The trouble is that some Members here are afraid of exporting democracy to Europe.

Mr. Molyneaux: Taking it from here.

Mr. Crouch: I cannot understand why some hon. Members are against having Members of Parliament somewhere other than here. Members of Parliament in Europe can do as good a job as Members of Parliament here on behalf of the constituents that they represent. They can do their job effectively, I suggest, because they can be seen to be more active democratically if they are there as of right, having been elected rather than nominated.

Mr. Gould: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that we are not against having Members of Parliament elsewhere in Europe? Indeed, we have gently pointed out that there are Members of Parliament elsewhere in Europe doing a very fine job.

Mr. Crouch: I know the views of the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Gould). Indeed, looking round the Chamber tonight, I believe that eight out of 10 Members present are passionately against my views. It may be that I am exaggerating, but I think that I know those who support me and those who are against me.
I shall finish on this point because I know that you want me to, Sir Myer. The right hon. Member for Down, South wants to constrain and constrict us, and not just the Bill. But I am afraid that he now wants to constrain Parliament and the people of this country from real expression and real advance. He wants to put us into a corset. I believe that he wants to put a chastity belt around this country. That is what I fear about the right hon. Gentleman's point of view. He is not helping us. He will not help us with the Bill. He will fight to the very last to wreck it, and I shall do the same to try to advance its course.

Mr. David Howell: The right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), when moving the amendment earlier, began by saying that he believed that the purpose of the amendment reflected what he understood to be the Opposition's view—that any increase in

the powers of the Assembly at the expense of national Governments or national Parliaments should be by Act of Parliament. I accept fully that that was his intention and the intention of those hon. Members who have put forward the amendment. It is obviously a matter for debate whether the amendment does the trick, and that is what we have been debating for the last few hours.
We have been discussing whether the amendment achieves the aims outlined by my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw) during Second Reading, namely, that any increase in powers at the expense of this place should be by Act of Parliament. That was the view taken by my right hon. Friend and that was the view to which the right hon. Member for Battersea, North sought to give expression in his amendment.
That is all that we argue. My right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border, in words that have been quoted this afternoon, asserted that any such increase in power would be unthinkable without an Act of Parliament. It was also pointed out during Second Reading that in a letter to Mr. Ron Hayward the Prime Minister expressed the same sort of sentiments, although he obviously used different words. No doubt we shall hear more about that in a moment from the Government Front Bench.
My right hon. Friend did not argue, nor do I now, that the whole Bill should be put in suspension in order for there to be a procedure by which any increase in the power of the Assembly at the expense of this place be governed by an Act. Nor did he argue—he made this clear in Hansard—that somehow we could put all the procedures of the Assembly into the deep freeze. That is not the proposition that we have put from these Benches. I do not think that the right hon. Member for Battersea, North or anyone else was asserting that we had gone beyond what my right hon. Friend said during Second Reading.
During the Second Reading debate the question sprang up—it has continued today—whether under existing circumstances it was correct to say that an increase in the powers of the Assembly would need an Act and could be done only by Act of Parliament. That debate has been continued, particularly in the


dazzling and learned exposition of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir a Walker-Smith).
During Second Reading the Home Secretary said that in his view it would need an Act of Parliament to give the Assembly any further powers. I do not think that we are right to conclude that from the debate today. Nor do I think that the Home Secretary was entirely correct, because we have had an example from the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) of the most important case when Article 203 of the Treaty was amended by Order in Council in ways that are set out in Command 6252.
Those amendments govern the financial provisions—that was an increase in the powers of the Assembly—and it cannot be denied that the order went through this House without an Act. It went through this House with approval, but without an Act of Parliament. Therefore, it is incorrect to say that under the present procedures an Act of Parliament is required to increase the power of the Assembly at the expense of this House. That is not so, because it did not happen in that case.
There was an increase in powers and the order was approved in this House under Section 1(3) of the European Communities Act. The Home Secretary was incorrect. If he implied that that was the Prime Minister's view, the Prime Minister was incorrect as well.
We are agreed—this is an unusual and untypical example of amicable agreement—that if the purposes outlined by my right hon. Friend and by the Prime Minister in his letter are to be fulfilled, something is necessary. The question that we have been debating is whether the amendment fulfils that purpose, whether some change to the Bill is now required to fulfil that purpose or whether it is the Government's view that further provisions already exist that will fulfil that purpose.
8.15 p.m.
My own inclination, having heard my right hon. and hon. Friends speak with great bearing and erudition on this matter, is that while a change is necessary the amendment goes considerably further in its actual purpose than what my right hon. Friend the Member for

Penrith and The Border had in mind, and what he specifically said during Second Reading.
We should like to hear from the Government how they propose to proceed in a way that is consistent with the various statements of aim that have been made in various places about what is now desirable in order to ensure that in future, when the House deals with the question of a treaty that would enlarge the powers of the Assembly, it can do so only in the form of an Act going through this House and not by a more surreptitious procedure. We think that that is the way to proceed. But that has not been said during this dramatic debate; it has merely been asserted that it is right that this sovereign Parliament should have a full opportunity of passing an Act of Parliament to supervise and approve or not to approve any transfer of powers that would be an extension of the Assembly's powers at the expense of this House.
That is our position, no more and no less. We should now like to hear how the Government intend to proceed on this matter.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Dr. David Owen): Everyone who has listened to this debate will agree that it touches on a very important and sensitive issue. A lot of the anxiety that underlies the debate about direct elections, and, indeed, the whole rôle of the European Assembly, is the fear held by a number of hon. Members on both sides that it is the start of a movement towards federalism and that the European Assembly will take unto itself powers that will challenge the House of Commons and, indeed, the national Parliaments.
The decision of the Government was made clear by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in a letter to the General Secretary of the Labour Party on 30th September. Under the heading
The maintenance of the authority of national governments and parliaments",
he said:
The Government has never accepted that the Community should develop into a federation. It is our policy to continue to uphold the rights of national Governments and parliaments. We do not envisage any significant increase in powers of the European Parliament


Should any such increase in powers be contemplated it would need the unanimous consent of the nine member states and of the parliaments.
I think that effectively to increase the powers of the European Assembly, whether at the expense of the powers of another European institution or of national Governments, would require an amendment to the Treaty of Rome. Any such amendment could be made only by varying Article 236 of that Treaty, which requires a conference of representatives of Governments of member States to be convened by the Council to determine the amendment by common accord. Article 236 specifically stipulates that the amendment shall come into force only after ratification by all member States in accordance with the respective constitutional requirements.
In France, the decision ratifying the Council of Ministers' decision on direct elections of 20th September 1976 required that any treaty extending the powers of the Assembly should be incorporated in the French constitution. This provision has been made because the French have a written constitution which requires that any Treaty, once ratified, is directly applicable and can override French law. We, who have no written constitution, find ourselves in a different situation.
There have been discussions about amendments. The situation is that, if Parliament were to approve the ratification of such an amendment to the Treaty, the legal effect of the amendment which has been put down by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) would be that the European Assembly Elections Act would fall to the ground as soon as the Treaty increasing the powers of the Assembly was entered into. I do not think that hon. Members who have argued for the sovereignty of this Parliament and the decisions made here can possibly support the amendment, which would have the effect of blocking a decision of this Parliament.
It is perfectly right to say that we should safeguard the rights of the House of Commons, but it is a fair argument that the House of Commons itself should be able to make these decisions. The Government's intention is clear. This Government do not wish to move in any direction towards a federation and do

not envisage any increase in the powers of the present Assembly.
We cannot, and should not, attempt to bind our successors. Neither should we preclude the possibility that the House of Commons may decide to make such changes. The effect of the amendment is very sweeping. The Government share the concern expressed in both today and on Second Reading about any extension of the encroachment on the legislative powers of national Parliaments, particularly our own.
The amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Down, South is defective on a number of grounds. It provides that any alteration—not necessarily an extension of the Assembly's powers—shall have the effect that I have outlined. This applies to minor as well as major alterations at the expense of Community institutions, such as the Commission, or of national Governments.
If we wish to retain the right to make these decisions and our Parliament is to remain sovereign—a view which I hold—we must face the fact that Parliament can make decisions with which some hon. Members might disagree.

Mr. Jay: Is my right hon. Friend really saying that if Parliament passes any Act at all, because it must repeal or amend that Act, the situation will be that Parliament is blocking itself on any future action? I believe that it would be possible to amend this measure.

Dr. Owen: I am coming to the question of how we could amend the Bill when it has become an Act.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) said that what we were being offered was a verbal assurance. He made great play of the fact that certain prominent personalities of this Government might not necessarily always be here, and that even if they were their intentions, which might be clear now, might not be fulfilled. That is perfectly fair. I have always thought, right from the start, that there was a case for putting this assurance into the Bill.
The Government's position is clear. We cannot accept any extension of powers of the Assembly which we feel will encroach on the powers of Westminster without specific legislation to that effect. We do not believe that it can be


done by affirmative order under the European Communities Act.
The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw), speaking on behalf of the Opposition, expressed agreement that it was unthinkable that the powers of the European Assembly should be increased at the expense of national Governments or Parliaments without an Act of Parliament, and that position was reiterated today.

Mr. Powell: The Foreign Secretary used the expression, in his drafting of a possible enactment, "a change which would encroach upon the legislative powers of this House". He will appreciate that many increases in the powers of the Assembly could be imagined which would, in fact, limit the powers of national Governmentts or Parliaments without in any way formally limiting our rights to legislate. Will he bear this point in mind?

Dr. Owen: One can take account of that.
There are two provisions that hon. Members and others outside have found most objectionable in the existing procedure. The main one is that it is possible to make fundamental changes on a one-and-a-half-hour order under the European Communities Act. Some hon. Members have mentioned the budgetary powers. If the Assembly were to be given powers—certainly this is advocated by those who want to see a federal State—to raise revenue, this would require a treaty which was subject to ratification. It would be offensive to take such a power by using the affirmative order under the Act.
It is technically possible, but unlikely, that the Assembly could be given powers in the future requiring amendments to the Treaty of Rome, and necessitating ratification, that would annul the laws of member States. It is possible to see the Assembly being given power to issue binding decisions, directives and regulations which would have effect in EEC countries and which would require an amendment to Article 189. Such an amending treaty, subject to ratification, would be subject to parliamentary approval under the Ponsonby rule. This would require legislation by Parliament under the existing Section 13 of the European Communities Act.
We believe that we should make clear in the Bill that we should do this by primary legislation. This is to meet a genuine anxiety which has been expressed. The question asked is how this should be done. At a later stage of the Bill the Government will introduce a new clause, which I think the right hon. Member for Down, South will agree is probably the best way of dealing with this issue rather than that we should seek to amend Clause I in the way he suggests. I have already explained that that amendment is defective in a number of respects. The clause will ensure that no extension of the powers of the European Assembly which would encroach on the legislative powers of this House can be agreed by the Government without an authorising Act of Parliament. When hon. Members see the exact wording of the clause, they will be able to decide whether it meets their objections.

Mr. Spearing: Why was it not done earlier?

Dr. Owen: My hon. Friend should recognise that this is a significant step forward in a direction which he and others have been advocating. It is a direct attempt to meet a matter of legitimate concern where action could be taken which would increase the powers of the European Assembly to the direct detriment of this House.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Jay: My right hon. Friend is referring to extension of the power of the Assembly which would encroach on the powers of this Parliament. Would he regard a further extension of the budgetary powers of the Assembly which did not directly affect this country as encroaching on the powers of this Parliament? I would have thought that that was a matter of opinion. Many people might think that it did not so encroach.

Dr. Owen: This is a point that will come out when one examines the details. The question is, what are the powers?

Mr. Spearing: Ah!

Dr. Owen: My hon. Friend must appreciate that I am trying to deal with this matter, and it is a difficult power to define in a legal sense. What is not difficult to define is something that affects our own legislative power in this House.
The matter goes beyond that. The authority of Ministers comes from the authority of the House of Commons. I could have come to this House and argued the Ponsonby rules, which have served the country well since they were first introduced in 1926. They touch the question of Crown prerogative and the matter of trusting in international obligations. The powers of the European Assembly are rightly watched with great care and, understandably, the House wishes to subject those powers to scrutiny.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: In regard to the Ponsonby rules, I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that they were not introduced in 1926—it was a Conservative Government by then—but in 1923 or 1924. More importantly, however, that is only a procedure for ensuring information to the House and discusison thereby. What is at issue here is parliamentary tion to the House and discussion thereby which would extend the power of Parliament. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman, with great respect, that he would be wise to avoid any such phrase as "encroaching on the powers of Parliament". That to some extent necessarily is a subjective value judgment. I think that this matter is capable of a simple formulation by way of ensuring Lord McNair's precedent laid down for Parliament in terms of ratification or amendment of the Treaty. That only brings our position on these matters into line with what is already enshrined in the written constitutions of most member States.

Dr. Owen: The idea is that Parliament itself should decide. I do not know whether the term "encroachment" will survive the scrutiny of parliamentary draftsmen, and it may not even survive the scrutiny of the House. I am offering the Committee, in good faith, the possibility of tabling a new clause to deal with this matter. It will be a clause which can be discussed. I am indicating to the Committee that it is right for us to be most vigilant and to ensure that there is adequate control. I refer to that matter in the sense of not relying on a purely verbal assurance. I think that we have met most of the points of principle, and I emphasise that the details can be examined when we see the new clause.

Mr. Powell: May I re-emphasise the importance of considering how unduly limiting is the definition of a change as encroaching on the legislative capability of this House? For example, if the Assembly were to take power to alter the budget or to impose taxation in some way, that would not alter the legislative powers of this House, just as formerly we were assured that there was no encroachment on the legislative powers of the House although there is direct taxation in other ways by the European Economic Community. This is a serious point.

Dr. Owen: It needs to be looked at, but in that case the Assembly does not now have that power because the power is held by the Council of Ministers. We are therefore protected in the sense that it is a subject not for majority voting but for decision by Ministers. If one were to take away from individual Ministers a decision to be made nationally, that is how one would come back to the matter of its affecting the powers of the House. We shall look at this and we are perfectly prepared to take on board all the points that have been made in the debate. We shall come back to it.

Mr. Marten: May I make a small point about language? The right hon. Gentleman said that he would offer the possibility of bringing forward a new clause. Can we be assured, to use the right hon. Gentleman's own expression about something else, that there are no weasel words here?

Dr. Owen: I have said that the Government will introduce, at a later stage of the consideration of the Bill, a new clause to give effect to the concern that has been expressed. There are no weasel words in that. We have had a discussion about the scope of the legislation, and I do not want to poach on that territory. However, I am advised that it will be possible to introduce such a clause, and I give that assurance in good faith but, like everyone else, I am subject to the decisions of the Chair.

Mr. David Howell: Guidance on this matter is already available to the Foreign Secretary on the question of the powers. It is in the amendment that we are discussing, and the point has rightly been made by the right hon. Gentleman that


the powers concerned are those that will take effect by virtue of any treaty as defined in Section 1 of the European Communities Act. We should be concerned with treaty alterations that hitherto had not been covered expressly, but the suggestion is that a clause would be brought forward to enable that to be done.
On the matter of timing, we have not yet debated it but it is a central element in our consideration of the Bill and the way we approach the amendments and our view of the right hon. Gentleman's proposal.

Dr. Owen: It will come up when the new clauses are taken. In view of the obvious interest of the Committee, we should try to ensure that the new clause is tabled in ample time for all Members to give it full consideration and to be able to make any adjustments that they might wish.

Mr. Mikardo: On that point, does not my right hon. Friend realise that those of us who have been worried about this matter cannot think clearly about our attitude to Clause 1 until we see the text of the new clause? Cannot my right hon. Friend at least put it down before we have finished with Clause 1?

Dr. Owen: My hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) is a far more experienced parliamentarian than I, and he knows perfectly well that the argument is that the Government should listen to the views of the House. The Government have listened, both on Second Reading and today, and have come forward in good faith with a proposition which it is open to anyone to amend or change or to take any view on it when it comes before the House. That is the normal way in which we deal with these matters. I urge hon. Members at least to accept that the Government have taken a step—although it may not be entirely what hon. Members want—in good faith to try to meet genuine feeling.

Mr. Gould: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is right in suggesting that a new clause is the best way of dealing with this, and the Government have taken a considerable step. However, the point that needs clarifying is whether in the

new clause the Government will bring forward and deal with the extension of the Assembly's powers rather than any diminution of the powers of this House. That is the essential point. We would want a new clause to change the focus from that suggested by my right hon. Friend to that which is implicit in the amendment.

Dr. Owen: I have undertaken to look at this, but I have to tell the Committee that there are real problems in definition. It is much easier to define anything which affects the diminution of powers of the House. One can take it further by saying that something is a diminution of the powers of a Minister. That will probably cover the point of anxiety. We need to look at that and other areas.
The word "powers" has been used rather loosely. I have described a number of areas of power—I spoke of legislative powers, which include regulations, directives and so on—and it is clear that we shall need definition here too. This will have to be subject to the scrutiny of the parliamentary draftsman and clarified by drafting to give hon. Members the opportunity to make any amendments. I am not claiming that it will meet all the points that the right hon. Member for Down, South wants, but it meets the basic anxiety relating to parliamentary sovereignty and decisions being taken to take away powers currently exercised by the House without the possibility of full and ample discussion and a considered decision being taken by the House on whether it wishes those powers to be taken away from it.

Mr. Jay: I recognise that my right hon. Friend has genuinely and courteously tried to meet the points raised in the debate, but I am afraid that his formula contains too many loopholes and is too uncertain. Therefore, although we shall look at his new clause with great interest when he brings it forward, I hope that we shall press the amendment.

Mr. Spearing: rose—

The First Deputy Chairman (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. Is the hon. Gentleman's intervention really urgent? I thought that the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) was closing the debate.

Mr. Spearing: I have just a few sentences to say, Sir Myer. We appreciate very much what my right hon. Friend has said and the tone in which he has said it, but our doubts are mainly related to the polarity of his suggestion. It is easier to define when a new party is taking powers than when one finds that one's own powers are being prejudiced.
New Clause 1 does precisely that. I understand that it is translated from the system adopted by the French Assembly

Division No. 32]
AYES
[8.44 p.m.


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Hooley, Frank
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Atkinson, Norman
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Moate, Roger


Bidwell, Sydney
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Molyneaux, James


Body, Richard
Jeger, Mrs Lena
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch


Bradford, Rev Robert
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Richardson, Miss Jo


Buchan, Norman
Kerr, Russell
Robinson, Geoffrey


Budgen, Nick
Lamond, James
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Carson, John
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Lee, John
Sillars, James


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Skinner, Dennis


Corbett, Robin
Litterick, Tom
Spearing, Nigel


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
McCusker, H.
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Flannery, Martin
Madden, Max



Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Marten, Neil
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


George, Bruce
Maynard, Miss Joan
Mr. John Ellis and Mr. David Stoddart.


Gould, Bryan
Mendelson, John



Heffer, Eric S
Mikardo, Ian





NOES


Abse, Leo
Eyre, Reginald
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Armstrong, Ernest
Fookes, Miss Janet
Rhodes James, R.


Arnold, Tom
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Gilbert, Dr John
Roper, John


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Graham, Ted
Rose, Paul B.


Bates, Alf
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Bean, R. E.
Harper, Joseph
Royle, Sir Anthony


Berry, Hon Anthony
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Sandelson, Neville


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Sever, John


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hooson, Emlyn
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Horam, John
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Bottomley, Peter
Howell, David (Guildford)
Small, William


Braine, Sir Bernard
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hunter, Adam
Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)


Brittan, Leon
John, Brynmor
Stallard, A. W.


Brotherton, Michael
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Buchanan, Richard
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Judd, Frank
Stott, Roger


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Kimball, Marcus
Stradling Thomas, J.


Carlisle, Mark
Lamborn, Harry
Strang, Gavin


Carter, Ray
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Cartwright, John
Lipton, Marcus
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
MacCormick, Iain
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Coleman, Donald
Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Thompson, George


Concannon, J. D.
Maclennan, Robert
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Costain, A. P.
Magee, Bryan
Tinn, James


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Crawshaw, Richard
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Crouch, David
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Molloy, William
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Doig, Peter
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Watkinson, John


Dormand, J. D.
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Whitehead, Phillip


Duffy, A. E. P.
Neubert, Michael
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Dunn, James A.
Ogden, Eric
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Dunnett, Jack
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Dykes, Hugh
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Palmer, Arthur
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


English, Michael
Parker, John



Ennals, Rt Hon David
Pattie, Geoffrey
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Ewing, Harry (Stiring)
Radice, Giles
Mr. James Hamilton and Mr. Frank R. White.


Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

Question accordingly negatived.

and related entirely to the new powers of the European Assembly. My right hon. Friend says that he is going to look at this, but why is that which is apparently acceptable to the French Assembly and Government not acceptable here? My right hon. Friend did not refer once to New Clause 1 in his reply.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 49, Noes 122.

The First Deputy Chairman: The Question is, That the clause stand part of the Bill. As many as are of that opinion—

Mr. Jay: On a point of order, Sir Myer. I wish to move, That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
Earlier today, we had a long discussion with the Chairman of Ways and Means about certain of the amendments that had not been selected, and he was courteous and helpful enough to give some of the main reasons why amendments to Clause 1, in the condition in which they had been first put down, were not suitable for selection. He also marked his selection today as provisional, which presumably implies that he was willing to reconsider his non-selection of some of these amendments.
It is clear that, if we proceed to discuss Clause 1 as a whole now, there will not be time in the Committee thoroughly to consider what the Chairman said, in order that we may be able to redraft some of the amendments to Clause I which, as is evident from our earlier discussion, could fairly easily be put in order if time and opportunity were given.
We have also heard from my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary that he proposes to introduce a clause on the vital point of powers. We have not yet seen that clause, and we are, necessarily, thoroughly vague about it. I think that it would be unsatisfactory to continue discussing the clause without knowledge of what the Government's new clause is to contain. I therefore very much hope that it will be possible to report Progress now, so that the Committee has the opportunity to proceed in a more orderly and considered way.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. There is no further submission to make at the moment. I have listened with great interest to the submission by the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), but I have to intimate that I decline to put that Question to the Committee.

The Question is, That the clause stand part—

Mr. Spearing: On a point of order, Sir Myer. I would like your guidance. When we entered the Chamber today, the Amendment Paper contained 11 amendments to Clause 1. It transpired that only one substantive amendment was either selected or in order. Earlier, we were given the reasons why certain matters were in order or were not in order. If we proceed now with the "clause stand part" debate, which you are about to call, Sir Myer, it means that we shall not be able, before Clause 1 is disposed of, to read what the Chairman said, in order that we might have the opportunity of tabling more amendments to Clause 1.
As there were 11 amendments on the Order Paper this morning, it was not expected that we would reach the "clause stand part" debate so soon. If we proceed without having the opportunity to read the Chairman's ruling and to put down more amendments, it means that the Bill will have the same history of the same attitudes and feelings as those attached to a previous measure of this kind, on which we encountered the same difficulties—although I think that it has been agreed across the Floor of the House and with the Chair that the same constraints do not apply to this Bill or, indeed, to this Government.
Those of us who believe that we should be able to table amendments, and that we should have the opportunity of advice from the Chair, hope that you can give us some guidance, Sir Myer. In the light of guidance from the Chair, we may wish to table more amendments to Clause 1, but if we now proceed to the "clause stand part" debate that will be impossible. For ever afterwards, those in this Chamber and those of us who put down the other 10 amendments which are not being called will have a legitimate grievance.
9.0 p.m.
It may be within the competence of the Leader of the House, who has democracy at heart and, indeed, the procedures of the House of Commons at heart, himself to move Progress. If that were to be the case, it might be possible. It has been discussed already. Perhaps you, Sir Myer, could suggest some procedure other than the moving of the motion. Otherwise,


we shall find ourselves in a very difficult position. I think that those of us present who have put our names to the 10 amendments will have a legitimate and reasonable grievance.

Mr. Ron Thomas: Further to that point of order, Sir Myer—

The First Deputy Chairman: Is the hon. Member's point of order on the same point, or are we to have another two-hour session on points of order? I have given a ruling already, in response to the submission made by the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), that I was not prepared to put to the Committee the Question, That I do report progress. What the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) is doing, in effect, is challenging my ruling. I was present in the Chamber during the whole of the submissions on points of order during the occupancy of the Chair by the Chairman of Ways and Means, and I have already proposed the Question, That Clause I stand part of the Bill, and the Committee is going to proceed.

Mr. Ron Thomas: On a point of order, Sir Myer. If, as you say, you were present during the submissions in regard to the amendments that were not accepted, I think you will agree with me that the Chairman was very helpful indeed in suggesting that had some of the amendments been worded slightly differently, they would have been selected. I particularly refer to Amendments Nos. 12 and 13, which dealt with the salaries and allowances of Members of the European Assembly when they are elected. The point was quite rightly made that outside this place this is one of the major items of concern. It has been discussed throughout the country, and considerable concern has been expressed about it.
The Chairman was good enough to say, as I understood him, that it was simply the way in which these amendments had been worded that prevented him from selecting them for discussion, and had they been worded rather differently, they would have been selected. If we now move to a debate on the Question, That the clause stand part of the Bill, it will be impossible for those of us who are very concerned about this mat-

ter, and are trying to represent our constituents in regard to it, to table other amendments which, if suitably worded, would be accepted by the Chairman.

The First Deputy Chairman: I think that we can dispose of this matter. There is some misunderstanding. As I have already said, I heard all the exchanges during that period before we embarked upon consideration of the amendments. My view is that it does not affect Clause 1. Apart from that, however, I remind hon. Members who are disposed to raise points of order that they have not been denied the opportunity of what they thought had been promised in the guidance given to them by the Chairman of Ways and Means, and that there is still the Report stage to come, when there will be the opportunity to put down those amendments.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: On a point of order, Sir Myer. I do not want to take up time, but there is a slight misapprehension on the part of the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas). The reference of the Chairman of Ways and Means to the amendments which could be in order if put down to an appropriate clause—he was good enough to indicate the clause, which was Clause 9, and the appropriate schedule—was to Amendments Nos. 10 and 11. Amendments Nos. 12 and 13, to which the hon. Member more specifically referred, were ruled out of order because they imposed a charge and would not be in order without a Ways and Means Money Resolution. So they are in rather a different position.

The First Deputy Chairman: I am obliged to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. That is what I was trying to convey to the Committee—that hon. Members are not being denied anything on the Question, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Spearing: We are.

Mr. Stoddart: On a point of order, Sir Myer. I understood you to refuse to accept the motion that the Committee should now report Progress. What I hope to do is to persuade you to the view that you should accept that motion.

The Chairman: Order. I have already given my ruling, and it cannot be challenged.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Marten: My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) has just pointed out to me—no doubt he will elaborate it in his remarks, if he succeeds in catching your eye, Sir Myer—the question of the Assembly of the European Communities. Nowhere in the Bill does it describe what the Assembly is. Nowhere does it refer to the Treaty of Rome, or anything like that. It might be any European Assembly, any assembly of the European Communities, and somebody else might set up a perfectly voluntary Assembly of the Communities in Europe. To which one would it refer? It requires clarification that it is the Treaty of Rome Assembly. Nowhere in the Bill is that mentioned. Perhaps that matter will be considered.
We are grateful for the fall-back position, with the Government intending to introduce a new clause which will go some way towards meeting our object in tabling the amendment. As has been said, what matters is that there shall be no extension of the powers of the Assembly, than that there shall be no taking away of powers from the House of Commons. That is what we want.
One is brought back to the question of the powers of the Assembly and the way in which one thinks it will develop. That is a matter that the Committee should consider very carefully. I go back in the history of this matter not so far as the beginning of the Treaty of Rome, where, clearly, the founders were aiming at a federal Europe; no more, no less. I go back merely to December 1974, to the Summit communique. The communique, which I have here, states that
The competence of the European Assembly will be extended, in particular by granting it certain powers in the Communities' legislative assembly.
That gives some indication of what it is after, which is why we must be very careful about the way in which the new clause is drafted.
To cover their intentions, which are so clearly expressed there, we go to the Tindemans Report, which Mr. Tindemans drew up after one year of solid study of the Community. He made a most interesting report, saying how the Community should progress. On page 4 he speaks of

remaining personally convinced that Europe will only fulfil its destiny if it espouses federalism.
So the great expert who has conducted a greater study of the Community than anybody in the Parliament of the United Kingdom gives it as his opinion that it must head towards a federal Europe. There again we are concerned with powers.
Then Mr. Ortoli, who was President of the Commission, writes as follows, in his annual report for 1975:
If the elected Parliament is to be true to its calling"—
it would not be anything other than true to its calling with the right hon. Member for Kettering (Sir G. de Freitas) as one of the bastions of the Assembly—
it must be given legislative power.
So that is confirmed again by the President of the Commission in 1975.
Right hon. and hon. Members might have heard about the attempts of the European Conservatives or Euro-Conservatives to form an alliance with the other similar parties—Christian Democrats, and so on—in the Assembly in that part of Europe which is called the Community. The other parties—the Christian Democrat parties of the EEC countries—have formed a party called the European People's Party. That is the one which I think our Conservatives over there would be trying to work with.
Article 3 of the statute of that new political party makes it quite clear:
Objectives.
(c) it shall participate"—
that is, this party shall participate—
in, and support the process of, European integration and cooperate in the transformation of Europe into a European Union with a view to achieving Federal Union.
Again, that is clear. We must ensure that any powers which might be required do not take us towards that objective.
This year, Lord Thomson, the former Commissioner, said:
After direct elections it will be converted into a rival of national Parliaments, fighting for a fairer share of Parliamentary power".
That is the reality from Mr. Tindemans, Mr. Ortoli and now Lord Thomson, who has declared exactly what they are after—more power. We are discussing the question of stopping them getting more power and how to do it.
In a more emotional way, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon), speaking in the Assembly on 15th June this year, said:
if I may say so, if we as Europeans fail to transcend the old nation-state boundaries, we will ultimately consign ourselves to the obscurity which we will have deserved".
There was apparently then applause from the European Conservative Group.
That is the emotional side of the argument. It shows a lack of faith in our country and a defeatist attitude towards our country if it is said that if we do not transcend nation-State boundaries—in other words, cease to be nation States—we shall consign ourselves to obscurity. What absolute rubbish!

Mr. Russell Johnston: Surely the hon. Gentleman is being unfair. It does not necessarily indicate a defeatist attitude; it indicates a different concept of the rôle of this country, which is not necessarily defeatist, but may be very optimistic.

Mr. Marten: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has intervened, because if he had made that remark I would not have criticised it, as he is an out-and-out and accepted federalist, and I admire him for it. I disagree with him, but I always respect him. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham has been a bit of a Gaullist at times, and that remark does not tie in with the attitude that he previously adopted.
Almost finally on the point about the powers in the clause, I come to the famous manifesto of the European Movement, published in November this year. Paragraph 7 reads:
we will work … to transform the Community into a federal democracy …".
Later it says that a European Government will be wanted and that until then majority voting should be used more widely.
All those are red lights flashing a warning that we must be extremely careful in drafting the amended clause to which the Foreign Secretary referred. The Economist of 26th Novmber carries an article with the title "Look before you leap". I agree with that. It is about Mr. Roy Jenkins. He is sometimes called "President Jenkins" in the Euro-bumph,

but that is too much like "President Carter". If we continue along that line, we shall have references to "President Plumb" of the NFU, and so on. The article refers to the question of monetary union. It states that
Despite Mr. Jenkin's retreat"—
that is, in the face of the fire from Mr. Ortoli—
Germany's finance minister, Herr Apel was scathing about the modest Ortoli paper when finance ministers took a first look on 22nd November. He waspishly described it as a 'string of pearls without any string'. And he insisted that Germany could not agree to a bigger and more redistributive EEC budget as long as countries such as Britain opposed political integration.
That is from one of the EEC countries going for political integration. We know that the Germans want a federal Europe, for a variety of reasons.
I think that I have given sufficient warning of the red lights to show that the new clause must be very carefully drafted to meet our objections.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, in her speech on Europe in Rome earlier this year, said:
I do not believe that the nation States in Europe will wither away".
I agree with her. She was saying that the nation State will survive. The logic of that is that no further powers will be given to the European Assembly at any time. That is the Conservative official view.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Mikardo: You told us, Sir Myer, that you were present when your predecessor in the Chair was kind enough to give the House advice on some matters concerning procedure and suggestions on amendments on the same topic that had been tabled in different terms and in different places. You will recall, Sir Myer, that you advised one of my hon. Friends that, even if one of the amendments was not called, it would be open to him to raise matters in it in the debate on the clause.
I propose to take the advice of the Chairman and make some references to some of the ideas in the amendments. I shall not attempt to cover them all, but I am sure that my hon. Friends will step in and fill all the gaps that I shall leave. I appreciate why I cannot talk about the amendments themselves, but I propose to


draw the attention of the House to some of the issues covered by the amendments and to some other issues.
If it came about that we were to have the opportunity of drafting revised amendments before there was a decision on Clause 1, we should not need to pursue all these various issues in the debate on the clause. I appreciate that the matter is entirely at your discretion, Sir Myer, but if you found it possible later to accept a motion to report Progress, perhaps from the Leader of the House or from another hon. Member, even in the small hours, and we had not completed discussion of this clause, it might be possible to deal with the issue with a little more celerity.
It might take us until the early morning to finish discussion of Clause 1, and I am bound to go through the various issues that are raised by the clause and to take my share of the Committee's duty to inquire into all the matters that are covered by the clause, along the lines suggested by the Chairman.
I refer to a subject raised by the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten). It involves the question of powers, which has occupied a considerable amount of time this evening. I welcomed the offer of the Secretary of State to table a new clause, but I reiterate what I ventured to put to him in a short intervention—namely, that it really is not possible for us to take a considered, balanced view of our attitude to the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill", without knowing the text of the new clause. We cannot vote without seeing that text.
I am not accusing my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary of any lack of good faith—I am sure that he made his offer in the best of good faith—but there are various ways of drafting the clause. Some of them will suffice, while some will not. Until we see the text, we shall be buying, in this debate, a pig in a poke. It might transpire that the new clause will still have to rely on ministerial assurances, such as those that have been quoted almost ad nauseam today, as a safeguard for the powers and the rôle of the House. If that is so, I say only that in this, my ninth Parliament, I can recall many events which have led me to the conclusion that I should adapt the proverb and say that all too often ministerial assurances are

piecrusts. Sometimes they have been piecrusts made of flaky pastry, and very thin flaky pastry at that.
So we want to know whether we are to have a clause which safeguards the achievement of the objectives for which right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have today been pressing. Or are we to have a text which will not stand up without the reinforcement of those ministerial assurances, without someone being able to argue what were the intentions of Parliament in respect of Clause 1 and the new clause respectively?

Mr. Dennis Skinner: There is another point that my hon. Friend might like to consider. Earlier today, during business questions, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House announced that there would be no Common Market business next week. Since my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary might come up with something which is supposed to meet the arguments put forward on the first amendment, it would seem ludicrous to conclude discussion on Clause 1 tonight. The Government are not including the Bill in next week's business, and it would seem that they can afford to leave it for that time. Therefore, it would be sensible not to conclude this debate on the clause tonight. The Government have delayed the debate on the Bill in order to have a debate on proportional representation in the week before Christmas—they have not told us that, but that is the arrangement that has been made behind the scenes with the Liberals—so why conclude this debate on the clause tonight?

Mr. Mikardo: There seems to be some force in my hon. Friend's argument. If no time is to be allocated to the Bill next week, what the heck is the hurry to get Clause 1 tonight? Having got it, it appears that we are only to sit on our bottoms and do nothing for a couple of weeks.
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, which was as cogent as always, and I return to the difficulty which we shall face unless certain provisions are specifically written into the Bill.
Over the last three or four weeks, in respect of another Act of Parliament, something has happened in the courts


which ought to cause us furiously to think. That Act first came before this House as a very small Private Member's Bill in 1975, with nothing like the importance and the moment of the Bill now before the House. It became the Domestic Violence and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1976. I am not, with respect, moving out of order, Sir Myer, in talking about that measure, because in doing so I wish to refer very closely to the Bill that is now before us.

Mr. Skinner: It is analogous.

Mr. Mikardo: When that Bill went through the House, the whole House understood at every stage—and the Lord Chancellor so advised—that its provisions applied equally to cohabiting couples as to married couples. That was manifestly the intention of Parliament. It was never in question. Then it was challenged in the courts in respect of cohabiting couples. The court ruled that it could not take into account, in deciding this cause, what were the intentions of Parliament. Indeed, the president of the court refused to allow to be admitted in evidence passages from the proceedings in Committee and in the House which made clear the intentions of Parliament.
It sounds like a small thing, Sir Myer, but you, with your long experience of these matters and your great knowledge of procedures of the House, will realise that it makes an enormous difference to us. If it is a fact that the intentions of Parliament—

Mr. Budgen: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Mikardo: Gladly, when I have finished the sentence. If it is a fact that the intentions of Parliament are not to be taken into account in deciding causes at law, we must make very sure indeed that our intentions are crystallised precisely in the wording of the Bill.

Mr. Budgen: If the hon. Gentleman is saying that he approves of the practice of Lord Denning—he was the judge who looked at the debates in Parliament upon that Bill, as it then was—presumably he would have approved of a judge looking at the observations of Tory politicians when they were introducing the Industrial Relations Bill. The hon. Gentleman

cannot have it both ways. Or would he say that the proper ground on which he bases himself was in his last sentence, when he said that it is important to get legislation right, because the courts interpret it not as it is believed it ought to be but as it is?

Mr. Mikardo: I do not think that that intervention does justice to the hon. Gentleman, who makes percipient contributions to our thinking. I was not talking about taking into account the observations of politicians in the House, and it does not matter tuppence whether they are Tory, Labour, Liberal or anything else. I did not say that at all. I was talking about taking into account what was clearly expressed as an intention of the House—not an obiter dictum by some politician, but the intention of the House. The hon. Gentleman in the end got round to the right answer but for the wrong reason. The point, of course, is that this puts upon us very much greater pressure to ensure that Acts say exactly what we intend them to mean, as far as it is humanly possible so to do. I join the hon. Gentleman in applauding Lord Denning's reversal of the decision of a predecessor. That, however, is not final. There has been notice of appeal to the House of Lords, and it can all be shifted back the other way.
9.30 p.m.
I do not want to go further into discussion of that matter except to point out —I repeat myself, but I promise to do so only once—that since a ministerial assurance, accepted by the House, indicates the intention of Parliament, if it is a fact that the intention of Parliament does not weigh in the courts, ministerial assurances ought not to be relied upon to give us the safeguards that we want. However much we know that assurances are given in good faith, and however much we trust and admire the Ministers who give them, it would seem that such assurances cannot be relied upon. Therefore, it is essential—I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench are listening, because I am addressing these remarks specifically to them—that we see the proposed text of the new clause promised by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary before we are asked to come to a conclusion on the Question, "That the clause stand part of the Bill".
It would be very helpful if one of my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench were to get up now and tell us that that is the intention. It would save an awful lot of talk and a very late night or a very early morning. The only point that worries me is that I have to deliver my daughter to Heathrow Airport at 6.40 a.m. I shall not be able to carry on after 6 o'clock, but I shall be all right till then. As my right hon. and hon. Friends know, I shall be bright, lively and alert all the way through to 6 a.m.
Seriously, I suggest that it would save a lot of time and trouble if my right hon. Friend would seek to ask leave for the Committee to report Progress before we are asked to reach a decision on whether Clause 1 should stand part of the Bill. We could then have a quiet, shortish debate and have a good look at the revised amendments that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides will no doubt want to table. It would be a sensible way to proceed. In the end it would reduce, rather than increase, the time spent debating the Question "That the clause stand part of the Bill". If my right hon. Friend wishes to intervene, I shall be happy to give way to him.

Mr. Skinner: Do not be shy.

Mr. Mikardo: I am sorry that my right hon. Friend does not want to intervene. However, I hope that he will have further thoughts on this matter and seek to intervene later. In the event, I must go on.

Mr. John Lee: Before my hon. Friend goes on, I should like to take up a point that he made earlier. Is there not another reason for certainty in legislation and for being specific in this clause? One other spinoff, as one might describe it, of the judgment in the celebrated case of Davis v. Johnson, to which my hon. Friend alluded, is that Lord Denning decided that the Court of Appeal could overrule itself.
We now have the situation that the two most superior courts in the land have decided that they are not bound by their own decisions. The House of Lords made that decision some time ago, and the Court of Appeal decided that this week. Does not that inject a further element of uncertainty into the whole of law-making at large and, therefore, make it imperative

that we should spell these matters out in as much detail as possible so that we can see the way ahead that much more clearly?

Mr. Mikardo: I go along with my hon. Friend as far as a layman can go along with a lawyer as learned as he is. If I tried to follow my hon. Friend all the way, I would rapidly get out of my depth.
Of course, it must not be thought that the case for having legislation precise and clear is a new one. We have always tried to make the text of the law as unambiguous as we can. If someone has to go to a court to find out what the law means, we accept that as evidence of failure on the part of Parliament to make its intentions clear.
I am not saying that we have always been slipshod in the past, but it is now necessary to become precise. We have always tried to be precise, but, of course, no man is so wise as to be able to anticipate all the contingencies that might arise. Therefore, in our mortal fallibility we unintentionally leave some ambiguities.
The only fresh point I was making was that in the past we have relied a great deal on ministerial assurances when they have been formal and given in good faith, but the events over the last few weeks warn us that we can no longer do so.

Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend is missing another point that is often instanced in this place and outside in respect of ensuring that a Bill can be easily interpreted by the courts. Not only do we have Committee and Report stages, but we often hear from the great constitutionalists that there is another place to deal with Bills in order to tidy them up, to insert the dots, the semi-colons and so on and to make sure that they are fit to be interpreted properly by the lawyers. But the real problem in respect of the House of Lords—I think my hon. Friend will agree—is that it is not the safeguard, certainly in relation to Common Market matters, that it should be.
With his great knowledge and experience, my hon. Friend will recall that when we initially dealt with the Common Market legislation in 1972—we were then innocent and naive members on the Opposition Benches—we expected the House of Lords, with its great wisdom, constitutional knowledge and know-how,


to fashion that Bill in a way which could be properly interpreted by the courts so that there would be no breakdowns in communication and interpretation thereafter. But, somehow, the House of Lords did nothing about that Bill. It did not even insert a comma.
That is what makes it important for my hon. Friends and all hon. Members to understand that, with regard to this Bill above all others the House of Lords can be no safeguard, even though it may be a safeguard in respect of other Bills, which I very much challenge.
With regard to the Common Market, however, there is such a pro-Market majority in the House of Lords that there can be no safeguard at all. That is what makes it even more necessary for my right hon. Friend to get up and say—

The Chairman (Mr. Oscar Murton): The hon. Gentleman is an astute politician, but he is confusing the difference between a speech and an interjection. I am glad that he agrees with me. Will he be kind enough to complete his interjection very quickly?

Mr. Skinner: I was so tied up with this that I was inserting the semi-colons and putting in the dots. I was explaining to my hon. Friend that this is such a crucial matter and of the utmost importance that he is right on the ball in demanding that the Government Front Bench should make a statement.

Mr. Mikardo: I hate to differ from you, Mr. Murton, but I thought that my hon. Friend's confusion was a little different from the way in which you put it. I thought that he was failing to distinguish between trespassing upon the time of the Committee and encroaching upon eternity. However, I would say to him that I do not join him in his criticism of the other place. I have a great regard for the other place and I shall go on having it as long as that place exists, which I hope will be for a very short time.
The real trouble with the other place in connection with this Bill is that it will not come to discuss it until we have finished with it. I am talking about something happening before we reach a

decision on whether Clause 1 should stand part of the Bill. It will be much too late when the other place considers the Bill. Even if my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover persuaded them all to have a road-to-Damascus conversion, it would be too late to get anything done about it.
The plea I am making to the Secretary of State is that we should be able to see the text of his proposed new clause and put amendments to it before we are asked to come to a conclusion on whether Clause 1 should stand part of the Bill.
We have been discussing the question of powers, and we could have gone on discussing it for a long time. I am sure some of my hon. Friends still wish to discuss it, because it is vital. There has been a great deal of difference of opinion among people—genuine differences of view—with opinions on both sides of the Committee held equally firmly and equally sincerely about the extent to which the existence of the European Assembly, never mind about its extended powers, will diminish the rights of the House, and certainly about the extent to which, if the powers are obtained, this will reinforce the powers of the Commission to make regulations binding on us. The extent to which the very rôle and the part to be played by the House of Commons would be gravely affected is also a matter of widely differing opinions.

Mr. Spearing: Was my hon. Friend present at the debate the other day when the hon. Member for Mid-Oxon (Mr. Hurd) welcomed the prospect of having another Member in his area to whom he could refer matters relating to the EEC? Would he care to speculate what would happen in North-East London if we told our constituents to go and see their directly-elected Member who had no powers ultimately in the European Assembly?

Mr. Mikardo: The very putting of the question by my hon. Friend indicates the answer. We have heard this afternoon from hon. Members on both sides how a few months ago an increase in the powers of the Assembly went through unchallenged and without any need for legislation in a most perfunctory manner either on a Friday or in one of those late-night dos that we have, when there


are about half a dozen sleepy hon. Members around—

Mr. Skinner: Not sleepy.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Mikardo: One wakeful Member and half a dozen sleepy ones. A motion then comes before the House at that hour containing masses of Brussels verbiage—what some of us call Brussels Chinese, a language that nobody understands. That motion goes through without anybody having appreciated what is before the House.
It has been done once, and there is nothing to prevent its being done again. That will happen unless we write into our law a provision that such a matter cannot go through this House in a hole-and-corner fashion but shall be the subject of full-scale legislation that alerts us all. We need alerting, in view of the great volume of stuff that comes before us on serious and important issues. Such a matter should never again be allowed to go through without coming before the House in a form in which we are alerted to its importance and significance.
In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Gould), my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary seemed to suggest that his new clause would be triggered off only by an attempt by the European Assembly to obtain powers that encroached on the powers of this House. That is a matter about which there could be all kinds of subjective judgments. If a new clause is to come along on those lines it will not do any good at all, because we require a better insurance policy than that. The only insurance policy is wording that requires an Act of Parliament if the European Assembly desires to make any significant changes in its powers. We shall then be in a position to examine the proposed changes, and we can judge for ourselves whether and to what extent they encroach on the powers of this House. That is the only thorough going and effective safety net that will be of real value to us. That is why we must see the wording before we can be fairly asked to give blanket approval to the Question, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
I leave that subject, although I am sure that some of my hon. Friends, and,

indeed, some Opposition Members who are more knowledgeable on these matters than I am, will seek to probe the matter a little further.
I wish now to deal with the matters raised by Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 and consequential Amendments Nos. 18, 22 and 23, which are amendments to Clause 2. We do not yet know whether they have been selected. This part of the discussion relates to whether those we send as representatives to the Assembly are to represent only the people of the United Kingdom, or the people of the United Kingdom, its colonies and dependencies. That is a subject of considerable moment. Let us examine the matter not through our eyes but through the eyes of any citizen of one of those colonies or dependencies.
The welfare and livelihood of such a citizen could be directly affected by decisions taken, motions carried and representations made by the European Assembly. A citizen of Bermuda or Hong Kong could have his trade considerably affected by the mucking about of the European Commission. Such a citizen could have his welfare affected by someone going from East London to talk in the European Assembly—and yet he would have no access to the Assembly at all.
Last week one hon. Gentleman talked about his own constituents being unable to have access to someone to discuss European Assembly matters affecting them. If one accepts that point, one must consider what access a citizen of Bermuda, the Falkland Islands, Gibraltar or Hong Kong would have. He would have no one to go to.
Let us consider what would happen if representatives were elected on a constituency basis. Which British Member of the European Assembly would such a citizen consult about what was imposed on him by the Community? Would it be the Member for East London or the Member for Aldgate Pump to Dagenham, which will presumably be one constituency? Is that the Member to whom this poor chap in Hong Kong would apply for redress of his grievances, to whom he could write and say "Please go to Strasbourg, and remember that I do not have the same trade union protection as do some other people, and that my


employers are being disadvantaged by EEC tariffs and regulations", or whatever else? Would it be that Member whom he should contact, or the one covering the counties of Devon and Cornwall? I ask hon. Members which would be the most appropriate as the voice of the citizen of Gibraltar. Would it be the Member for Devon and Cornwall or the Member for Aldgate Pump to Dagenham?
Let us consider what would happen if we adopted the regional system. How would the poor chap in Gibraltar or the Falkland Islands decide between the Member for the North-West Region and the Member for the South-East Region? In fact, he will not have any access. He will have his welfare affected to a greater or lesser extent by what goes on in Strasbourg and he will have absolutely no one to turn to.

Mr. Powell: Is there not a more exquisite reason for doubt and difficulty that the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) is overlooking, which is that unless we get rid of the regional list this chap will not even know who are the Members for those constituencies?

Mr. Mikardo: That is absolutely right. If we had the first-past-the-post system the poor chap would at least know the name of someone he could write to, although he would have no claim on that person beyond the right to point out these things, but he would not even know the person's name if we had the regional list system.

Mr. Dykes: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. I am sorry to stop the proceedings but the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) was, as usual, making an extremely boring speech, and most Members—as a result of his speaking for more than half an hour—had switched off and were no longer listening closely.
I forced myself to try to concentrate briefly on what the hon. Gentleman was saying. Unless I misunderstood him, he seemed to be talking about a clause that was not Clause 1. I understood that this was a debate on whether Clause 1 should stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Skinner: Further to that point of order, if it is a point of order, Mr. Murton. Before you answer it, I should like to make representations on behalf of many of my hon. Friends and many Opposition Members. We have greatly enjoyed the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo), but we have been informed in the last 10 minutes of an area that has not been discussed before. It is extremely important that all this material is brought out.
I understand why the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) is getting a bit aerated about the matter. He hopes to be one of the 81 Members of the Assembly picking up £30,000 a year and he does not want someone from Hong Kong writing to him. That is his problem.

The Chairman: I do not think that any comment is needed from the Chair.

Mr. Mikardo: I am sure that if I had strayed away from the paths of order, Mr. Murton, you would have been quick to redirect my feet on to the proper path without the assistance of the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes). I shall go on talking for as long as I am in order, and if the hon. Gentleman is getting a little tired, or finds his powers of concentration flagging, I give him leave to go out for a noggin or two in the next hour or so. He can then come back for the last part of my speech.
It is a matter of importance who the representatives are to represent. There is nothing in the Long Title about this matter.

Mr. Body: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the question of who is to speak up for those living in the dependancies and affected by policies of the EEC, may I ask whether he is aware that the French are coping with this problem very much better than we are? Their equivalents to Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands—that is, Martinique and Guadaloupe—will be represented in the Assembly. Yet we are to be deprived of the opportunity of amending the Bill to allow the counterparts of Martinique to be represented.

Mr. Mikardo: I hasten to assure the hon. Gentleman that I was not about to leave this point. He has anticipated one of the arguments that I proposed to put


to the Committee. Do we think it right that a citizen of a British colony should have less power and influence in this matter than a citizen of a French colony?
The Long Title does not say who is to be represented by the representatives. Only later do we come to a reference to the people of the United Kingdom.
It would have been open to the Government to draft the Bill in such a way that it covered the colonies and dependancies as well as the people of the United Kingdom. Indeed, it is still open to them to do that by a new clause or an amendment. We have already had an undertaking, for which we are very grateful, about a new clause. If the Government can bring in a new clause along the lines

Division No. 33]
AYES
[10.0 p.m.


Armstrong, Ernest
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Arnold, Tom
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Rhodes James, R.


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
George, Bruce
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Gilbert, Dr John
Roper, John


Bates, Alf
Graham, Ted
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Royle, Sir Anthony


Bottomley, Peter
Hannam, John
Sandelson, Neville


Braine, Sir Bernard
Harper, Joseph
Sever, John


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Brittan, Leon
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Brotherton, Michael
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Small, William


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Hooley, Frank
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Buchanan, Richard
Hooson, Emlyn
Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Horam, John
Stallard, A. W.


Carlisle, Mark
Howell David (Guildford)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Carter, Ray
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Cartwright, John
Hunter, Adam
Stott, Roger


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
John, Brynmor
Stradling Thomas, J.


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Strang, Gavin


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Cohen, Stanley
Judd, Frank
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Concannon, J. D.
Kilfedder, James
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Corbett, Robin
Le Marchant, Spencer
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Tinn, James


Crawshaw, Richard
Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
van Straubenzee, W R.


Crouch, David
Maclennan, Robert
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Davidson, Arthur
Magee, Bryan
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Dormand, J. D.
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Watkinson, John


Duffy, A. E. P.
Meyer, Sir Anthony
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Dunn, James A,
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Whitehead, Phillip


Dunnett, Jack
Molloy, William
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Durant, Tony
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Wiggin, Jerry


Dykes, Hugh
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Neubert, Michael
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


English, Michael
Ogden, Eric
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Ennals Rt Hon David
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David



Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Palmer, Arthur
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.


Eyre, Reginald
Pattie, Geoffrey
Mr. James Hamilton and Mr. Donald Coleman.


Fookes, Miss Janet
Radice, Giles





NOES


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Henderson, Douglas
Marten, Neil


Atkinson, Norman
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Maynard, Miss Joan


Bidwell Sydney
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Mikardo, Ian


Body, Richard
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Moate, Roger


Budgen, Nick
Kilfedder, James
Molyneaux, James


Carson, John
Lamond, James
Powell, Rt Hon J Enoch


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Richardson, Miss Jo


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Robinson, Geoffrey


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Litterick, Tom
Rooker, J. W.


Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
McCusker, H
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Sillars, James


Flannery, Martin
Madden, Max
Skinner, Dennis

proposed by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, they could certainly bring in—

It being Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made and Question put,
That the European Assembly Elections Bill may be proceeded with at this day's sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mrs. A Taylor.]

The House divided: Ayes 116, Notes 45.

Spearing, Nigel
Welsh, Andrew



Stoddart, David
Wigley, Dafydd
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)
Mr. Bryan Gould and Mr. John Lee.


Thompson, George
Wise, Mrs Audrey

Question accordingly agreed to.

EUROPEAN ASSEMBLY ELECTIONS BILL

Again considered in Committee.

Question again proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Mikardo: rose—

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Frank Judd): rose—

The Chairman: Mr. Judd.

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Mikardo: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. With great respect, I was in mid-sentence when you were required to suspend proceedings by the rules of the House. Is it not the custom that if a Member has the Floor when there is an interruption, he is called to complete his observations?

The Chairman: Not in Committee. If a Minister rises, the Chair is bound to call him.

Mr. Jay: Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton. It may not be absolutely necessary under the rules than an hon. Member who is speaking in these circumstances should continue, but surely, as a matter of normal courtesy and the normal practice of the House of Commons, it must be right that my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) should be given the chance to continue. I hope that in any case my hon. Friend the Minister of State will extend that courtesy to him.

10.15 p.m.

The Chairman: Perhaps I can explain to the right hon. Gentleman. I may not have made it clear. I am not bound to call a Minister, but it is customary. The hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) could resume thereafter if he felt inclined to do so.

Mr. Gould: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. It is surely not the practice of the House of Commons for a Minister to be called simply because he rises. That is surely even more the case if an hon. Member is already on his feet. What seems to have happened in this instance

is that, through the purely fortuitous circumstance of my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) having been interrupted by the need to suspend the 10 o'clock rule, a Minister has taken the opportunity of rising to his feet. However, what it means is that he has risen in the middle of a speech being made by my hon. Friend.

The Chairman: We are in fact in Committee, and that has a certain bearing on the matter.

Mr. Mikardo: Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton. I have served on hundreds and hundreds of Committees in my time and I cannot recall a single occasion in all my parliamentary experience when a Member who has been interrupted in the middle of a speech as a result of some procedural change has not been called to finish his speech, irrespective of who rises to speak. I am bound to say. Mr. Murton, that I understand your difficulty. I think that a better advised Minister would have had the good sense and the courtesy not to rise in the middle of a speech of one of his hon. Friends. I very much doubt whether the Minister will commit the same silly mistake ever again.

The Chairman: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman, who is a very experienced parliamentarian, knows that that is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Judd: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. I would simply like to say that I have listened with such engrossed fascination to what my hon. Friend was saying that I was very anxious to seize an opportunity of beginning to deal with some of his lucid points. However, if my hon. Friend wishes to continue, far be it from me to interfere with his flow of reason and thought, and I shall willingly give way to him.

Mr. Mikardo: rose—

Mr. Moate: On a point of order, Mr. Murton—

The Chairman: Perhaps we could take a point of order from the Opposition side of the Committee.

Mr. Moate: I wonder whether you would be good enough, Mr. Murton, to clarify your ruling. Even if the Minister gives way and allows the hon. Member


for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) to proceed, I think that some of us are a little bit concerned about the ruling that you have given about the normal custom in Committee. Those of us who sit on the Back Benches find it hard enough to compete with the Front Benches in the normal procedures of the House of Commons. I think that we would be a little alarmed if it was recognised to be the custom for Ministers to have priority and that when they chose to rise they would be recognised by the Chair.
Whilst I cannot claim to have the experience of the hon. Member who is at the moment in mid-sentence, in the seven years that I have been a Member of Parliament I have never known an occasion in Committee when a Minister who has chosen to rise has automatically had, when a Member was in mid-speech, the right to catch the Chairman's eye by custom or by the rules of the House of Commons. I would be grateful, Mr. Murton, if you could clarify the position.

Mr. Stoddart: Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton. We must have clarification on this point because it seems to me, although I have not the experience of my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo), that Back-Bench Members in Committee will in future be at the mercy of the Front Bench and that, at any time when a Member is making a telling point that a Minister does not like, the Minister can get to the Despatch Box, catch the Chairman's eye, and take precedence over the Back-Bench Member who is on his feet. That is an intolerable intrusion into the rights of Back-Benchers, and I hope that you will reconsider your ruling.

The Chairman: On the resumption of debate in Committee, the hon. Member who was speaking on the previous occasion does not automatically have the Floor. I think that that is well understood.

Mr. Powell: Further to the point of order, Mr. Murton. I submit to you that it is not on all fours with the situation that a Member who was speaking at the conclusion of the previous sitting has the Floor when the House resumes in Committee but that it is extremely rare and

unusual for the Member who was speaking not to remain in possession of the Floor when the House is resumed after being interrupted merely in order to take the suspension motion. I am sure that it would be helpful to the Committee if you could draw the attention of hon. Members to the last occasion when this practice was put into effect.

Mr. Ron Thomas: Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton. As a relatively new Back Bencher, it seems to me that on many occasions in Standing Committee we have to suspend the sitting in order to come down to the House to vote. That seems to be an open invitation to the Minister in charge of a Bill imediately to rise to his feet when we return upstairs. As an ordinary, relatively inexperienced Back Bencher, I think that we should have clarification of this matter, because obviously when we are speaking in Committee we should have to bear in mind the whole time that we might be called away to vote in the Chamber and we would not know when we returned whether we would be able to continue to make the points we wanted to make.

Mr. George Cunningham: Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton. It is such a manifestly ridiculous practice that you are suggesting exists in the House of Commons that it probably is the practice, and I accept it. I wonder whether you would enlighten us as to the page of "Erskine May" on which this appears, and could you read us the appropriate sentence?

The Chairman: It may be necessary for research to be conducted, but what I said before is the fact. I suggest that there is a slight difference between returning to the Chamber to vote for a particular purpose, as the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas) suggested, and the situation resulting from resuming the House to take the business motion. In normal circumstances I would say that if a Minister rises he catches the eye of the Chair, but there is nothing to prevent a Member who has spoken once from rising and speaking again should he catch the eye of the Chair.

Mr. George Cunningham: Further to the point of order, Mr. Murton. You


will recognise that very often in Committee upstairs a Member is on his feet at the end of a sitting. I have served in the House of Commons for only seven and a half years, but in that time it has always been my experience that at the next sitting that Member is automatically called to continue his remarks.
The same practice may not apply on the Floor of the House. Obviously, one understands some reasoning behind this practice, but, in contrast with sittings of the House, as such, a Member, as you say, can rise again, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) can rise again to pick up the second half of his speech if the Minister intervenes now.
The question is, what is the practice of the House? The practice of the House should be enshrined in a Standing Order, where it ought to be, of course, but never is. There is no Standing Order, I suggest, which you can invoke in support of the ruling you have given. There never is. Is there a sentence in "Erskine May"? I am prepared to recite "The Green Eye of the Little Yellow God" or whatever is necessary in order to let this appropriate sentence be found, but either we go according to the established practices of the House as enshrined in that silly book or we do not. If there is something established about it, we should know and it should be possible to quote it immediately before one has to look up the index.

Mr. Skinner: Further to the point of order, Mr. Murton. Following on from what everybody else has said, as a relatively inexperienced Member—a member of the awkward squad—may I ask whether as the custom is of extreme long standing and reference to it is difficult to find, rather than hear my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) recite "The Green Eye of the Little Yellow God", it would not be sensible to allow you, Mr. Murton, and the Clerks to consult the books? The only way in which that can be done satisfactorily is to suspend the proceedings.

Mr. Madden: Further to the point of order, Mr. Murton. I was sorry to be deprived of the opportunity of hearing my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal

Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) continue his speech. Under the heading "Precedence on resuming an adjourned debate", "Erskine May" states on page 416:
When a debate has been adjourned, while a Member was speaking, upon the interruption of business prescribed by the standing orders, he is entitled, on the next occasion, to resume the adjourned debate, and continue his speech".
I should be grateful, Mr. Murton, if you would reconsider your ruling in the light of that statement.

The Chairman: The hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Madden) is perfectly correct about page 416 of "Erskine May", but it must be read in conjunction with page 419, where it is stated:
Practice in Committee. In a committee of the whole House the restriction upon speaking more than once is altogether removed".
I do not know where that gets us. I should have thought that honours were even. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Even if they are slightly uneven, the Minister has said that he is prepared to give way to the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikado). The Chair is in the hands of the Committee as to which Member should speak next.

Mr. Jay: Further to the point of order, Mr. Murton. Would not the most constructive solution be for the Minister to move to report Progress to give you time to read right through "Erskine May"?

Mr. Powell: Further to the point of order, Mr. Murton. I am sure that the Committee appreciates the generosity of the Minister in being willing to resume his seat. However, unless the Minister had a right at that point to be called, it is not unsatisfactory that the matter should be left as it is, otherwise the custom as quoted by the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Madden) may be held to have been superseded by your ruling today, which would create a new precedent? I should hope that it would not be left that the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) had the floor by courtesy of the Minister but that he was allowed as of right to resume his speech, subject to any subsequent investigation.

The Chairman: I entirely endorse what the right hon. Gentleman has said. I think that it would be by courtesy of


the Minister—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I beg pardon: it is the other way round. That is what I gathered the right hon. Gentleman said.

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Powell: I am sorry, Mr. Murton, if inadvertently I was not clear in what I said. My point was that, although the willingness of the Minister, had he been legitimately called, to resume his seat was a courtesy and is appreciated, in view of the uncertainty, to put it at its lowest, and possibly because of the precedents with which the hon. Member for Sower-by has acquainted the Committee, it would not be satisfactory that the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow should continue his speech merely by courtesy if the practice of the House is to give him the right to do so.

10.30 p.m.

The Chairman: I misunderstood the, right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). I entirely agree with the statement that he has just enunciated. I apologise for not having appreciated the exact point the first time.

Mr. Mikardo: Since the Minister made an amende honorable, and since I always rejoice of sinners who repent, out of courtesy I shall give way to him. I do so because I am sure that I shall catch your eye later, Mr. Murton, when I shall resume where I left off —although it might take me a while to pick up the thread.

Mr. Judd: I say again that I sincerely apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo). He is a long-standing friend, and no discourtesy was intended. I was so impressed with the significance of his remarks that I was over-keen to deal with some of the pertinent points in his contribution.
I shall deal with a few of the observations in the elucidating period since the amendment was dealt with. First, the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) said—I noted his words carefully—that the clause must be very carefully drafted. Without any qualifications, I can give him the absolute assurance that the clause will be very carefully drafted.
The hon. Member also remarked upon the dangers of a drift to federalism. I

must be careful not to bore the Committee with repetition, but I must draw the Committee's attention to what my right hon. Friend said earlier this evening. He referred to the communication sent by the Prime Minister to the General Secretary of the Labour Party in which it was stated categorically that the Government have never accepted that the Community should develop into a federation.
That was not only said in a letter from the Prime Minister on that occasion but it has been said with the full authority of the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary and of the Prime Minister in this Chamber. I therefore emphasise and re-emphasise that our concept of the European Economic Community is of a Community in which independent and sovereign States collaborate together for the common good.

Mr. Marten: I apologise to the Minister, but I was playing a verbal billiards game and trying to get the cannon off the Minister's Bench to my own Front Bench to get those sitting there to say the same thing.

Mr. Judd: When we were dealing with the business statement for Europe, I assured the hon. Member that I was always willing to bring his views to the attention of his own Front Bench. I am sure that that has happened again this evening.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow warned us about the dangers of piecrusts and the unsatisfactory nature of expecting the Committee to rely simply on ministerial assurances on issues of this magnitude. That is why it is so important that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has been able to assure the Committee this evening that we shall bring in a new clause.
That brings me to the other substantial point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: May I take up the question of the Foreign Secretary's assurance? Is the Minister aware that, when I raised a point of order earlier about the scope of the Bill and the extent to which amendments might be in order, I was told by the Chair that any amendment which sought to affect the present powers of the Assembly or to


change its future powers would be out of order and beyond the scope of the Bill? In considering the drafting of the new clause, have the Foreign Secretary and his Department taken advice on what would or would not be in order?

Mr. Judd: This ties in well with the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow and with which I was about to deal. My hon. Friend was emphasising that he would find it difficult to resume his seat permanently—he has generously done so temporarily at this juncture—until he had seen the terms of the new clause. He is an old friend, and I say to him in honesty that I find it difficult to see the logic of that case.
My hon. Friend has emphasised forcefully that the intentions of the Committee should be well understood and adequately reflected in any clause which is introduced to deal with this matter. That is why this debate, which has been continuing for some time now, is so important. It means that the views and anxieties that exist in all parts of the Committee will have the opportunity of being fully reflected in the clause when it is drafted. But my hon. Friend must accept that it is not possible to draft the clause immediately and at the same time take proper account of the views expressed. We must have time in formulating the clause to look into and take account of the points that have been made in the debate.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I am not in the slightest bit concerned about the immediate appearance of the new clause. I suspect that I shall not favour it when I see it. I simply wonder whether the Government will be able, in the light of the ruling I was given, to alter the Bill, of which at the moment I rather approve, by the inclusion of the new clause which has been offered tonight.

Mr. Judd: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said earlier this evening that he was confident that that could be done.
I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow that we wish to take seriously the kind of points that have been made in this debate. We intend to ensure that no rushed or ill-drafted legislation is put before the House

and that whatever is put before the Committee is fully effective in meeting the kind of problems that have been outlined this evening.

Mr. Mikardo: No one is talking about rushing. Furthermore, I did not say, as my hon. Friend suggested, that I could not sit down until I had seen the clause. I said that the Committee could not be expected to come to a conclusion on the Question, "That the clause stand part of the Bill". I said also that we should not seek to finalise our view on the matter this evening but that at some appropriate stage this evening or tomorrow morning the Minister should move to report Progress. We have been told that there are no proceedings on the Bill next week. Therefore, we shall come to this Bill again in the week after next. That gives the Foreign Secretary 10 days in which to table the new clause. That is not much of a rush, is it?

Mr. Judd: In drafting the new clause we are anxious to take fully into account in a considered and appropriate way the kind of observations that have been made tonight. My other point—I think it is most significant in this context—is that there will, of course, be a full opportunity to debate the clause when it is put before the Committee. There is no question, therefore, of the Committee being asked to buy a pig in a poke in this respect, because the Committee will be considering specific wording which is formally before it. I imagine that we shall have a very interesting and a very searching debate on that occasion.

Mr. Powell: Will the Minister, however, not least for his own sake, address himself to the point made by the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke)? I think that the reference of the Foreign Secretary to his confidence that the thing could be done was a reference to the possibility of putting the intention into the drafting of a clause and not to the possibility of a clause on that subject being within the scope of the Bill.
I do not know whether the Minister was present this afternoon during the long proceedings on the scope of the Bill, but in the course of that the Chair ruled that an amendment dealing with the powers of the Assembly would not be within the


scope of the Bill unless, like the amendment which was disposed of earlier, it was precisely related to the purposes of the Bill. It would therefore appear to be necessary, if the intention is to be carried out, that the clause should not only be so drafted as to give the assurance necessary but to give it in the context of elections to the European Assembly.

Mr. Judd: By definition, I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree that it will not be possible to introduce a clause unless it is in the context of the Bill and, therefore, within the rules of order and procedure of the House. My right hon. Friend has made it plain that he believes that this can be done. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend did not give such an undertaking in any light-hearted sense. He is a man who weighs his words very carefully, and he will have considered the full implications of the statement which he made to the Committee this afternoon.

Mr. Dykes: Will the Minister crystallise again what he has just said, for the satisfaction and clarity of the Committee? Will he say that any new clause which comes forward over that period will be absolutely within the scope of the Bill, as has already been explained and agreed in the earlier discussion in the Committee?

Mr. Judd: I have just explained—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman heard it—that it would not be possible to introduce an amendment which was not within the scope of the Bill, and, therefore, the new clause will by definition be within that scope. We have had a good innings on this and I must proceed.
This brings me to the interesting constitutional observations by my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow on the difference of status between those resident within French overseas territories and those resident within British colonies. I am sure my hon. Friend would recognise that, while he may have underlined what he may regard as an unsatisfactory position in terms of their general constitutional and political rights, this difference is intimately related to the difference which exists between the people of the remaining colonies of the United Kingdom and the United King-

dom itself, and those which are operative between residents of French overseas territories and France itself, where on many occasions there are representatives in the French Assembly representing their interests.
I turn next to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), whose consistent and honourable position on this whole issue is second to none and whose persistence I am sure we all admire. He made one observation which interested me considerably. He asked what our view would be if a constituent were to consult us about a problem which existed within the European Community and we felt that we had no option but to refer him to a Member of the European Assembly who would have limited powers. I do not want in any way to get out of order at this juncture, but it seems to me that this raises interesting questions about the kind of electoral system we have and which we shall be debating later.
I think that the point which has to be emphasised and re-emphasised is that the rôle of the European Assembly in no way resembles the rôle of our Parliament or, indeed, of any other Assembly in any of the member States of the Community.
Therefore, I believe that there is a good argument for emphasising this point by demonstrating, in the system of election that is employed, that this is a completely different function and that it is not a representative function for handling legislation in the usual way.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Spearing: My hon. Friend is mistaken about the point that I was trying to make and made rather badly at the time. The assurance given by the Foreign Secretary—perhaps my hon. Friend would not be so confident if he had been here during the earlier part of our proceedings —was that he would introduce a clause which would prevent the legislative power of the Assembly trenching upon that of the House of Commons. My point was that, because the Assembly already has the power of consultation on legislation which is directly applied to this country and the House has not, the mere fact of election would trench on the ability of hon. Members to protect their constituents. Therefore, that must come within the criteria laid down by the Foreign Secretary.

Mr. Judd: We must not stray into this area, which will be debated in later proceedings on the Bill. However, one way of emphasising the different role and of making it plain that this is in no way a restriction of the legislative rôle of this Parliament would be to have a different kind of electoral system.
I fully understand the logic of those who want nothing to do with the European Assembly and are therefore against the concept of any direct elections. They have adopted a consistent position, and one can understand the logic within it even if one does not agree with it. However, I put it to my hon. Friend—indeed, I recall making this point in a debate on this subject earlier this year—that, once we have a clearly separately elected body fulfilling this function of the Assembly, the eyes of every elected Assembly throughout the Community will be focused on it as never before. In that sense, the Assembly will be watched intimately to make sure that it in no way advances its powers beyond those already established. I believe that that will be the position. But with the addition of the clause that has been promised to make the point clear, I believe that we shall have a double safeguard.

Mr. Budgen: Is the Minister saying that he would be in favour of some system which made it obligatory for those who sit in the European Assembly also to sit here so that, if they say something in Europe of which we disapprove, we may have the opportunity of discussing it with them?

Mr. Judd: I have already made this point very clear. The point that we want to register—it will be underlined by the whole concept of the new clause outlined by my right hon. Friend this afternoon—is that we see the Assembly with strictly defined powers. We are asking the Committee not to buy a pig in a poke —that is the expression that I used earlier—but to vote for something that is clearly defined. We shall have an even more clear-cut situation, because we shall have a separate body of people fulfilling this limited function under detailed scrutiny by all the Members of the various national Assemblies throughout the Community.

Mr. Ron Thomas: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a fundamental

Test (Mr. Gould), between a clause which distinction, referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, refers to encroachment on the rights of this place and extension of the powers of the European Assembly? My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary did not give a satisfactory answer to that question. We are concerned about an extension of the powers of the European Assembly. In my view, the Assembly has already encroached on the powers of this place, and it is a subjective matter of judgment as to when that happened.

Mr. Judd: It is interesting that my hon. Friend has made that point because in many ways he has underlined the point that I have just made. It is arguable that there have been qualitative changes in recent months and years within the role of the European Assembly. But that has happened in the context of indirect representation where the whole issue has been confused and the edges have been blurred. I genuinely believe that it will be more difficult for that kind of thing to happen when it is seen as a completely separate body with the eyes of national Assemblies upon it.
I make one other point with regard to the anxieties of my hon Friends who are concerned about encroachment on the rights of the House, and the encroachment that may already have occurred. We should remember that it has been clearly stated by the Prime Minister in the letter from which I quoted, and it has been said in this House on other occasions as well, that we are determined to see effective action taken to improve the powers of scrutiny and accountability of this Assembly. That is another priority which we must see in company with the objective that we have just spelled out.
This has been a helpful debate. It has enabled us to understand much more fully the anxieties and doubts which exist in the Committee. But I submit that the clause is by definition an essential part of the Bill and I therefore trust that the Committee will fully endorse it.

Mr. Jay: The Minister has made a very odd speech in a number of ways. At one point he warned us against rushing into ill-drafted and rashly composed amendments to the Bill. That is exactly the reverse of what my hon. Friends and I have been doing.
About an hour ago I attempted to move to report Progress in order that we should avoid ill-judged and ill-drafted amendments. I put the arguments to your predecessor, Mr. Murton, but he was not quite as sympathetic to them as I expected. I put the argument that it would surely be better to give the Committee time to consider re-drafting some of the amendments which earlier today you found were not entirely in order and to do that before we had finished with Clause 1.
As a result of that argument's not being accepted, and as a result of the Government's attempt to rush on the "clause stand part" debate, we have been deprived of that opportunity. Those amendments are now not as well drafted as we would have wished. I find it extraordinary that the Minister should proclaim that he is trying to avoid the Bill and the amendments thereto being rushed and ill-drafted.
Secondly, the Minister protested that he agrees with nearly everyone else in the Chamber that it is not desirable to turn the EEC into a federal union. He also assured us that he did not wish to see the powers of the Assembly increased. But if that was true, why was he not willing to accept the amendment that we moved earlier?
The Government's refusal to accept that amendment, which would have secured precisely the objectives which the Minister says are his objectives, has aroused great suspicion about the Government's intentions, a suspicion which many of us did not feel earlier in the debate. The whole of the Minister's speech was an argument in favour of that earlier amendment. Since that is so, why on earth did the Government refuse to accept that amendment and recruit the pay-roll vote, or some element of it, into the Lobby against it?
Thirdly, some hon. Members opposite —I do not know for what reason—threw doubt on the proposed new clause of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on the ground that it might be out of order. If there is any danger of that, surely this would have been an argument for accepting our amendment. Since you, Mr. Murton, ruled that the amendment was in order, it is perfectly clear that the

amendment must have been within the scope of the Bill, within the Long Title, and in accordance with "Erskine May" from beginning to end. Here was an amendment that achieved what the Minister wished to achieve. It was well within the scope of the Bill, yet the Government asked us to reject it. I think that that requires an explanation.
I have a further question about the exclusion of some United Kingdom colonies while some French territories overseas are being included in the EEC. As I understand it, there are French territories in the Bahamas which are regarded as part of France for EEC purposes and which therefore qualify for representation in some form in this Assembly. If this is the case and these areas outside Europe are to be regarded as EEC territory, do they constitute EEC territory for the purposes of the common fisheries policy? Is any part of the ocean within 200 miles of Martinique to be regarded as part of the EEC's fisheries ocean in which United Kingdom fishermen are entitled to have some share? It seems that these French territories are part of the EEC. Is this so? Will the Minister clear this up, because there is some doubt in hon. Members' minds.

Mr. Body: The Minister of State tried to help the House in his explanation, as did the Foreign Secretary earlier. The fears we have are not about the formal transfer of power from this House to the European Parliament. That is not realistic without this House being well and truly alerted, especially as there are a growing number of hon. Members sensitive about the subject—far more so than when the European Communities Act was passed in 1972.
The concern of some of us is about a transfer of power from the Council of Ministers to the European Parliament. We must recognise that in the European Communities Act this House transferred fiscal and executive powers to the Council of Ministers. I am concerned, and so are others, that there will be a move to release the Council of Ministers from certain of these powers and that they will be vested instead in the European Parliament.
The fiscal powers may prove more important. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell)


said earlier, there is no doubt that the European Parliament will seek to enlarge its powers by widening the scope of the European budget. He quoted the comments by some Members of the European Parliament who sit here. One of our colleagues said that there was nothing wrong with the common agricultural policy, or the fact that millions were spent on it and that the real wrong was in the regional, industrial and social policies, where not enough money was being spent. He said that once as much was spent on these policies as on the CAP, there would be less criticism of the CAP. He then argued for a very much larger European budget. That will be possible without any transfer of power from this House to the European Parliament.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. Gould: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the difficulty about reducing the proportion of the Community's budget spent on agriculture will be even greater when the absolute sum spent on agriculture increases substantially as the consequence of enlargement? If other forms of expenditure are to loom larger in the budget, the absolute increase in those sums will be astronomical.

Mr. Body: Yes, it is a terrifying prospect for those who have to buy food in this country. The greater part of the Community's budget in future will come from import levies. It is true that a large part now comes from external tariffs. Some of us who originally advocated entry into the Common Market hoped that the EEC would have a liberalising effect on world trade, but it has not.
Furthermore, it is apparent that it is becoming more and more protectionist. Hong Kong and other developing countries recognise how fiercely protectionist the EEC is becoming. It may be that a common external tariff will be raised on some commodities in future, and the other element to be considered is VAT. However, the financing of the Community budget must come from import levies. It is not recognised enough by our people how oppressive those levies already are.

Mr. Ron Thomas: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that in my constituency in the port of Avonmouth last week a cargo of corn arrived from Europe?
It was unloaded on one day by the dockers, and the very next day it was reloaded and sent back to a different part of the EEC. The shippers made a cool £20 per ton on that cargo under the ludicrous system of levies. This is a time at which dockers and others are being forced to abide by a 10 per cent. rule, and it is obscene that such profits can be made because of this lunatic economic system.

Mr. Body: There are many examples of how that can be done. I believe the Irish can tell many a story of how much money can be made across the border with lorry-loads of pigs.
But what is not given sufficient publicity is the effect of these import levies on food prices. Those levies are to be increased on 1st January. From that time lamb from New Zealand will be taxed at a rate of 20 per cent. It will cost even more by the time extra capital needed to finance that operation will put the price of that lamb up by 30 per cent. A wide range of foodstuffs is subjected to these levies and they are decided by the Council of Ministers. It is that body and nobody else that decides. Wheat must be taxed at £33 per ton before it comes into this country, and that causes wheat to be priced at £90 a ton. It would certainly be very much less but for the levy.
In considering the clause, we must have regard to the transfer of fiscal power which will move from the Council of Ministers to the European Parliament. If the European Parliament extends those powers it will do so by extending its policy, and legislation will be required in the Council of Ministers or here. That can be done only by spending more money—in the way that Members of the European Parliament almost unanimously wish to do.
The other concern to which I wish to draw attention is the transfer of more legislative power than already takes place under the European Communities Act. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath), who is present and who played a notable part in that legislation, will confirm that under Section 2 the House surrendered a great deal of its legislative power to the Council of Ministers. We know that under Article 189 of the Treaty of Rome the Council


of Ministers has power to pass regulations on a wide range of subjects and totally to bypass this House.

Mr. Doug Hoyle: What the hon. Gentleman says is becoming increasingly true in, for example, tax harmonisation. In January tax on tobacco is to be harmonised and that will greatly affect the sales of cigarettes in this country. Plain cigarettes will become cheaper, because the tax will be based on production costs rather than, as at present, the weight of tobacco in a cigarette. As a result, tipped cigarettes are likely to go up in price, yet there has been a health drive to try to persuade people in the interests of safety to go for the low-tar, tipped cigarettes.
Because of interference from the Commission in tax harmonisation, the drive towards protecting people's health—rightly undertaken by the DHSS—could be reserved by a decision over which we have no power. It is disgraceful that the health of our people is being put at unnecessary risk. It would not have happened if we had not joined the EEC.

Mr. Body: It is worse than that, because the regulation to which the hon. Gentleman refers was passed before 1972 and a publication produced in 1971 warned tobacco companies and the public of the consequences of the regulation. The tobacco companies, which are squealing about it now, shrugged their shoulders and did nothing about it. They left it to the Government to negotiate a derogation. Of course, no derogation was negotiated and the regulation is now likely to be binding on us. There is little we can do about it under Article 189.
There are numerous other examples. One which surprised hon. Members was the directive on the protection of birds. One of my hon. Friends made a sensible contribution to the debate on that directive last week, saying that he thought that the Common Market was something to do with the economy and did not realise that the protection of birds could be brought into its embrace. But, of course, anything can be brought within that embrace, and the protection of birds directive proved it.
There is a risk that the Council of Ministers will hand over its executive
BER 1977 Elections Bill 
function to the European Parliament. We know that this is the wish of many members of the Commission, including Mr. Roy Jenkins, who has expressed that view clearly. We know that the Parliament rightly already plays a major part in consulting the Commission before any draft regulation comes before the Council of Ministers. It is a small and easy step from there, once the Parliament is directly elected, to apply pressure on the Council to surrender its influence. This House will then lose its influence over that legislation. At least we can have some influence over the Council of Ministers.
We have no power but at least we can approach Ministers attending the Council. We see them here and we can question them when they report to the House. As a result of the work of the Scrutiny Committee, we have debates on draft regulations, as we did the other night on the common fisheries policy. I hope that, as a result of that debate, we have strengthened the arm of the Minister of Agriculture, if it needed strengthening, and enabled him to take a firm stand on behalf of our fishermen.
In other informal ways we are able to influence Ministers attending the Council of Ministers. Once that function has passed from the Council of Ministers to the Assembly, once the European Parliament claims democratic respectability, this House will lose its indirect influence and impact upon Ministers.

Mr. Marten: My hon. Friend was referring earlier to the regional councils. Is he aware of the remark by Herr Apfel, talking about monetary union in the Community, when he said that Germany could not agree to a bigger and more redistributive EEC budget as long as countries such as Britain opposed political integration? This is precisely what this Parliament is opposing. Therefore, it is hardly likely that there will be a redistributive flow of funds.

Mr. Body: My hon. Friend is right. Gradually he is gaining converts.

Mr. Crouch: Not one. More speeches like this and my hon. Friend will lose support.

Mr. Body: I listened attentively to what my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) had to say earlier.

Mr. Crouch: Hear, hear.

Mr. Body: I am glad to have my hon. Friend's confirmation that I had not misunderstood him. He does not appreciate what many of us have been saying.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Merlyn Rees): I beg to move, That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
I think that the correct words are that we have had an interesting discussion. The Government have won a vote on the point on which the Prime Minister wrote to the General Secretary of the Labour Party stating his general intent about what this House should do concerning the powers of this House with regard to the Assembly. We shall return to that later.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again tomorrow.

AGRICULTURE

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.)
That the draft Agriculture Products Processing and Marketing (Improvement Grant) Regulations 1977, which were laid before this House on 10th November, be approved. [Mr. Harper.]

Question agreed to.

CHURCH HILL HOUSE HOSPITAL, BRACKNELL

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Harper.]

11.15 p.m.

Mr. William van Straubenzee: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and particularly to Mr. Speaker for allowing me the opportunity to raise a matter which is of some considerable anxiety and concern to my constituents, and I am very much obliged to the Minister responsible for the disabled for his courtesy in being here at this hour to answer the debate. I know that he has the same concern for those who are caring for the mentally-handicapped as has any other Member of this House.
The hospital of which I speak is the Church Hill House Hospital at Bracknell in Berkshire. All the 270 patients in that hospital are mentally handicapped. They are all, as the saying goes, "informal" patients—I use the word in inverted commas. That is to say, none is admitted under the Mental Health Act, which means that none of them is being detained. There are 146 nursing staff who are concerned with their care.
It is not an unusual story. The basic buildings of this hospital were originally the workhouse of the area, and under successive Governments, and with care and expenditure over many years, the buildings have been greatly improved, enlarged and added to. On the several occasions when I have had the privilege to visit the hospital, like everyone else I have been very much impressed by the atmosphere. But the atmosphere is soured at the moment. The matter starts with a letter sent to the Minister by the Wokingham Constituency Labour Party, undated, but received on 1st November. It makes very serious charges indeed about the conduct of the hospital.
I do not take time to read the letter in full, but I will read an extract. It was sent by the secretary of the constituency Labour Party. It said:
…we have reason to believe that there is strong evidence of victimisation of and discrimination against trade union members; that there have been cases of the fabrication of documents for the purposes of discrimination and fraud; and that there have been incidents


of violence involving both staff and patients at Church Hill House hospital.
These are very serious charges, and they hang over my constituents who are on the staff of the hospital and are the cause of my raising this matter.
The matter arose basically, as the letter makes clear, from an affiliated branch of the National Union of Public Employees. I understand that the chairman of the East Berkshire branch is a Mrs. Warwick, sometimes described as a nurse but in fact a nursing assistant, which is a different appointment. My first question, therefore, is whether it is a fact, as I believe to be the case, that Mrs. Warwick has recently been the subject of a disciplinary hearing carried out under the disciplinary procedures of the Berkshire Area Health Authority. I ask that question because it seems to me to be relevant when we come to judge the weight of the evidence which she seeks to put before us.
I have quoted from the letter from the constituency Labour Party. The constituency Labour candidate has wholly and absolutely associated himself with the charges in the letter. Quite rightly, the Minister of State, to whom I am also grateful, writing to the Labour Party on 16th November, said this:
It is imperative that full and specific details of all allegations and incidents you refer to in your letter should be made available at once to the Berkshire Area Health Authority, so that they can carry out full investigations into them. I hope that you and the NUPE Branch will put all the information you have in the hands of the Area Health Authority.
I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that that letter is now 16 days old. It is 16 days since the letter was despatched.
My second question is this. Have any details of allegations and incidents—full and specific details, to use the Minister of State's phrase—as at today's date, to the Minister's knowledge, been supplied either to the Department or to the area health authority? I repeat that it was 16 days ago.
The message that should go out from this debate, if the Minister tells us that so far no details have been supplied, is "substantiate or withdraw"—either substantiate these very grave allegation or withdraw them. If they are not substantiated or if the complaints prove to be so trivial as not to justify the allegations,

then the candidate concerned will stand discredited.
But I do not make my major case to be that. I have in front of me the full-scale spread of the Wokingham Times of 3rd November. The Wokingham Times is a member of the Thomson Group of newspapers. It spreads across the whole front page,
Why this hospital must be probed".
I quote from the leader, known in that newspaper as "Adam McKinlay's Column":
All is not well at Church Hill House Hospital for the mentally handicapped in Bracknell, and there is urgent need for a public inquiry. For weeks a team of reporters from this office has been investigating allegations of violence and other serious acts concerning patients and nursing staff. Their findings worry me.
Further on it says,
the main issue…is the allegations of acts of violence of a most unpleasant nature against mentally handicapped patients.
They are very serious charges indeed to be made in a public newspaper, as you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will agree.
A little later, the editor writes,
I have gone through every line of the investigation carried out by my team of reporters and if only one of the serious allegations of acts of violence against the patients is true, it is one to many. This is no time for mincing words. I have read all the allegations which were brought to Alan Furley and I share his anxiety.
He has read all the allegations, so they must exist; they have been read.
I ask my third question of the Minister. Has there been any contribution from the editor of this newspaper? Has he made statements available to the area health authority or to the Minister's Department? Has any of this evidence been made available?
I say with some reluctance that the truth about this newspaper is that it is a local newspaper dominated by its editor, and, in turn, he is a man with a passion for self-advertisement. Journalistically, he is without principle. He cares only for the circulation of his newspaper and his own ego. Perhaps I may give a small example. It would, I think, be a surprise to the readers of The Times of London if Mr. William Rees-Mogg's photograph—pleasant as it is—were to appear regularly on the front page of that newspaper. But that is what regularly happens with


this paper. For example, in the issues both of 20th October and of 17th November there was the editor's photograph on the front page.
I believe that this editor has used his position as editor to bring maximum discredit upon the entire staff of this hospital who are devotedly caring for the mentally handicapped, without having made public, unless we hear to the contrary tonight, to the Minister or to the AHA a shred of evidence in support of his cruel allegations.
Fourthly, I do not know whether the Minister will feel able to do this, but I ask him to warn hospitals in the immediate area of what might happen in the columns of the newspapers in the same way as it has in respect of Church Hill House. For example, the editor was recently a patient at Heatherwood Hospital. He wrote honeyed words about his treatment there from the nurses, but heaven knows what revelations he might yet be prepared to make and write leaders about.
I believe that the borderline between restraint and ill-treatment is a very thin one. There may well be guidelines, but they cannot cover all situations. In the care of the mentally handicapped there can be violent aggression by one patient leading to some use of physical force and restraint, but others caring for such a patient may do it by only a word or a gesture, and restraint may sometimes be necessary by an experienced nurse who has seen danger signals.
I sum up my views in this way. I want it to be clearly understood—and I hope that the Minister will understand—that I think that any person who abuses his care of the mentally handicapped should ruthlessly be the subject of inquiry. I want the Minister to appreciate, as I am sure he does, that nothing that I am saying tonight would seek to sweep under the carpet matters which should be the subject of inquiry.
I certainly assert firmly, even in regard to a profession which I respect greatly and which is doing work that I think is demanding and difficult, that any case of violence or any alleged case of violence should certainly be referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions. Mine tonight is not a case of trying to whitewash. What I am saying to the Minister

is this. I think there is a responsibility, too, upon those who make these accusations. The responsibility is not to make the accusations publicly as was done in this case—that has endangered everybody's reputation and cast a cloud over the whole of the hospital and all the work within it—until investigations have been carried out privately.
For example, I assert firmly that if proper allegations, substantiated allegations, had been brought to me, as to any other hon. Member I feel sure, I should certainly have done all I could to have them very thoroughly investigated first.
The alternative is not to make public allegations unless one is simultaneously prepared to produce the evidence on which those public allegations are based. Those seem to me to be the two criteria which it is reasonable to ask of anyone who is making such grave accusations as this. For the truth is that in a situation like this the staff of a hospital—all of them, nursing, medical, administrative—against whom such allegations as these have been made have no redress once the allegations are made public. They must all suffer the stigma of an unproven allegation. They have no redress, with one exception. That exception is being demonstrated tonight.
Not only is Mr. Speaker the guardian of the rights of minorities in this House, for which we are very grateful, but he is the guardian of the rights of minorities among those whom we represent here. It was he who enabled me to raise this matter tonight with the Minister, and enabled him, as I trust, with due regard to his overall responsibilities for all the things that I have said, if he feels so inclined, to come to the defence of the staff whose predicament I have raised.

11.30 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Alfred Morris): The hon. Member for Woking-ham (Mr. van Straubenzee) has brought before the House a matter of very considerable importance to people living in and around his constituency. I am grateful for the manner of his speech. He dealt with Press allegations which have not been supported by facts. They are allegations that could seriously undermine public confidence in an important service for mentally handicapped patients


and the highly skilled staff who look after them. I welcome the opportunity provided by the hon. Gentleman to show that the allegations have not been supported by any statements of fact. I shall also seek to answer the pointed questions he has posed and comment on recent events which gave rise to this debate.
Church Hill House Hospital is near Bracknell, and has about 270 beds for mentally handicapped patients. Over the years, it has rightly earned a good reputation for the services it provides. The hospital is held in high regard locally, where many families rely on it for support which is essential to them in the care of their mentally handicapped relatives.
Early in November, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services was asked by the Wokingham constituency Labour Party to set up an independent inquiry into allegations about Church Hill House Hospital. He was told that the executive committee had received representations from an affiliated branch of the National Union of Public Employees, which led it to believe that there was evidence of victimisation of, and discrimination against, trade union employees at the hospital, of fraud, and of violence involving both patients and staff. In view of the representations the constituency Labour Party had received it was, of course, both understandable and proper for it to raise the matter with my Department.
Moreover, when suggestions of misconduct of this kind are made there is a recognised procedure for dealing with them. In keeping with this procedure, my hon. Friend the Minister of State replied to the Secretary of the Woking-ham constituency Labour Party stressing that it was
imperative that full and specific details of all allegations and incidents
should be made available to the area health authority at once so that the authority could carry out a full investigation into them. My hon. Friend asked that any information in the hands either of the local party or the NUPE branch concerned should be passed to the AHA. In the meantime, the Press carried reports of the allegations that were being made. These reports, however, con-

tained no specific factual information upon which investigations could be based.
The Berkshire Area Health Authority is responsible for provision of services at Church Hill House Hospital. It is concerned that the hospital should be managed efficiently and well, and that patients should receive the highest possible standards of care. It is its policy to investigate complaints and allegations about management and about services to patients, both thoroughly and impartially, and also to take any necessary action to ensure that these objectives are met. The authority was, therefore, understandably very concerned about the allegations that were being made about the hospital. At the same time, it was rightly anxious that it should have the full facts so that it could start investigations without any delay. But I understand that it has not received any facts supporting the general allegations that have been made.
Clearly, the area health authority cannot carry out any meaningful investigation without some factual information. Its officers have made wide-reaching inquiries within the hospital, but I am told that they have discovered nothing to indicate that the allegaions are in any way warranted.
The authority is, of course, in an invidious position. The public will expect of it that it either refutes the allegations or shows what action it has taken to put right what it has found to be wrong. Yet its first duty is to investigate, and it cannot do this without factual information in support of the allegations. This it has not been given. As a responsible body, it must exercise caution before issuing any public statement implying that it has come to final conclusions about the management of the hospital and services to patients while there remains any possibility of someone coming forward with hard facts that can be investigated.
The rumours and allegations about Church Hill House Hospital have had a serious impact on morale among the staff there. I am told that at all levels they find themselves under a cloud of suspicion. The staff have emphasised to the area health authority their confidence that the care they give their patients will stand up to examination by anyone wishing to go to the hospital and look


at their work in detail. Naturally they want to have the allegations about the hospital refuted. They are impatient for those responsible for the Press allegations to come forward with factual statements which can be properly investigated.
It is not surprising that this affair should have had its effect on morale in the hospital. As the House well appreciates, good morale is essential to good services to hospital patients. If the allegations that we have seen in the Press have been made without just cause, the burden of responsibility on those who made them is a heavy one indeed.
The allegations have also had their impact on public confidence in the hospital. There have been requests for full inquiries. The hon. Member for Woking-ham has written to my hon. Friend expressing his appreciation of the dedicated and devoted work of the staff at Church Hill House Hospital. Moreover, he is by no means alone in having done so. The area health authority has received communications from a great many people, including relatives of patients and the hospital's League of Friends, expressing their confidence in the staff and in the care they give their patients.
I am sure that all this is very encouraging to the staff at the hospital. While they feel under attack, they must have found some solace in the knowledge that they have the admiration and trust of so many people who are qualified by their experience of the hospital to express an informed opinion. I think it important that the people of Berkshire should know that many who have intimate knowledge and experience of the hospital just do not believe that the allegations have any substance.
In his speech, the hon. Member asked some specific questions. I should now like to deal with them. One of his questions was whether the area health authority has yet received statements of facts in support of the allegations. The short answer is "No". From no source has the authority received any statement of fact throwing light on the allegations and which might make detailed investigation possible. For my part, I sincerely hope that, if anyone has any information that should be made available to the area health authority, he will make it available to the authority without delay. Mis-

management, fraud and ill-treatment of patients are gravely serious matters which must be dealt with responsibly. These are not words to be bandied about lightly and without just cause. The hon. Member and his constituents have my word that I shall have any factual information very rigorously examined.
This brings me to the hon. Member's suggestion that the area health authority should be cautious in its dealings with the Press. I shall certainly draw the authority's attention to what he said. I am, of course, fully conscious of the very important rôle played by the Press in drawing attention to matters of public concern. The hon. Gentleman's point to me is that this affair highlights the need for the Press to check out stories as far as possible before going to print on matters which are certain to give rise to public disquiet. Credibility is the journalist's stock-in-trade, and credibility suffers irreparable harm when readers are asked to give credence to reports of smoke without showing at least some clear evidence of fire.
The hon. Member also referred to disciplinary proceedings held at the hospital recently. I understand that in October there was a disciplinary inquiry at the hospital involving an unqualified nursing assistant, and that she was subsequently given a formal warning about her conduct. I understand that this was the employee referred to in the first of the questions put by the hon. Member.
It has been suggested that this nursing assistant and other members of the staff have been subjected to victimisation. The area health authority would not accept that the disciplinary action could be regarded in any way as victimisation. It has not, however, been given specific details of alleged acts of victimisation but, as in the case of the other allegations which have been made about the hospital, it is prepared to investigate, given the facts.
It is a matter for deep regret that those who have made allegations have not come forward with facts for the area health authority to investigate. If there are no facts available, I find it a cause for particular concern that the allegations were made in the first place. Without factual support the allegations can be regarded as nothing more than rumours.
While I do not doubt that the people involved passed on the rumours that they had heard in good faith, this whole affair seems to emphasise the very great dangers of rumour-mongering. As I have said, real harm has been done to the morale of a group of people who have the often very demanding job of looking after mentally handicapped people.
I am sure that their dedication to the needs of their patients is fully recognised by the area health authority and by the relatives of the handicapped people in their care. That knowledge at least should hearten the staff. I cannot stress strongly enough the importance I attach to the need for anyone who has factual information bearing on the general allegations that have been made to come forward so that a thorough investigation can be carried out.
What it comes down to is this. It is all very well to demand an inquiry. We are very ready to investigate any specific allegations of improper behaviour. But I must again emphasis that we must first know what the allegations are before we can invesigate them.
I should like now to pay tribute to the responsibility with which the area health authority has acted. It has made it clear that it will thoroughly investigate any facts laid before it. Its officers have made inquiries to discover anything that might be going wrong in the hospital, but this has brought nothing untoward to light. It has also invited the police to carry out their own investigations and I understand that these are still continuing.
It is not possible for me to say whether the police inquiries have led or may lead to any action in the courts: I can go no

further than to say that the area health authority has heard nothing so far that leads it to believe that formal police proceedings are likely. The area health authority has made it clear by its actions that it exercises proper vigilance in managing services at the hospital.
I cannot let this opportunity pass without also paying tribute to the men and women who provide the health services for mentally handicapped people. They are dedicated people who undertake a difficult task and do their work to a very high standard. I endorse entirely what the hon. Member said about the dedication of people who spend their lives helping the mentally handicapped.
Development and enhancement of services for the mentally handicapped is one of the Government's top priorities in the health services. We want to ensure that mentally handicapped people have a satisfying environment, as far as possible in the general community, that they have education, stimulation and employment so as to develop and exercise all the skills they can acquire so that they can achieve their full potential in society. In developing services in this way we rely heavily on the experience and expertise of the existing staff, who can show what success their past efforts have brought in these directions.
I emphasise the importance of what was said—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at fourteen minutes to Twelve o'clock.